TyroCity: Sociology Notes

Caste & Ethnic based inequality

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Caste

Anthonio Giddens: ‘A form of stratification in which an individual’s social position is fixed at birth and cannot be changed. There is virtually no intermarriage between the members of different caste groups’

H.H Risley defined caste as ‘…a collection of families or groups of families bearing a common name, claiming common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, following the same hereditary calling, and regarded as forming a homogeneous community.’ (HH. Risley cited in Dwivedi 2012:111).

The varna consist of four categories, each ranked differently in terms of social honour. Below these four groupings are the ‘untouchables’, those in the lowest position of all. The jati are locally defined groups within which the caste ranks are organized… Those in the highest varna, the Brahmins, represent the most elevated condition of purity, the untouchables the lowest. (Giddens 1989: 213).

The term ‘caste’ is derived from the Portuguese word ‘casta’. Portuguese explorers in the 15th century used the term casta to describe the social organization they encountered among the Hindus of South Asia.

H.H Risley defined caste as ‘…a collection of families or groups of families bearing a common name, claiming common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, following the same hereditary calling, and regarded as forming a homogeneous community.’
Anthony Giddens (1989: 735) ‘an individual’s social position is fixed at birth and cannot be changed’.

‘The varna consist of four categories, each ranked differently in terms of social honour. Below these four groupings are the ‘untouchables’, those in the lowest position of all. The jati are locally defined groups within which the caste ranks are organized… Those in the highest varna, the Brahmins, represent the most elevated condition of purity, the untouchables the lowest. (Giddens 1989: 213).’

Major divisions in caste

Brahmin: Only the children of Brahmin is a Brahmin. This is the caste of Hindu priests whose high status is based on their purity by birth which gives them exclusive religious right to perform Hindu rituals. They also enjoy special rights to arbitrate between what is religiously wrong and right. Their caste also compels them to live in a strict discipline allowing them only vegetarian food, making it compulsory for them to learn Sanskrit language, and to learn Hindu rituals. ‘The Brahmin priesthood was originally a class only, which grew into a close hereditary caste on the strength, mainly of their special possession of ancient hymns and their knowledge of how these were to be employed with due effect in various offices of religion’(Whitney cited in The Vedas 2003:22)

Kshatriya: is the second highest category in Hindu varna system. This is the caste belonging to warriors. Most of the Kshatriya believe that they are the descendants of Kshatriya warriors of the past. They believe that their duty is to protect not only the ethical values as defined by Hindu sacred scriptures but also the caste system based social order itself.

Vaisya: This category is the third highest caste. The duty they are ascribed to are trade, agriculture and money lending.

Shudra: Shudra are believed to impure caste whose sole duty is to serve the top three castes in Hindu society.

Panchammas: The fifth caste in Hindu caste system are called by different names. Some called them Panchamas (the fifth varna), others call them Asprushya (“untouchables”) but they prefer to define themselves as ‘Dalit’ which means “suppressed” in Sanskrit language. The word Dalit was first used by Indian social reformer Mahatma Jyotirao Govindrao Phule around mid-1800s. Many social rights activists from Shudra caste also define themselves as Dalits.

Further division

Four Varna was categorized into two mainly two categories: (i) Savarna and (ii)Avarna (Dwivedi 2012:112). In the beginning the Shudra castes were included in the Savarna category along with Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaisya and differentiated them from Avarnas which included ‘conquered people, servants, and Yavans (non-Aryan invaders from the west, including Greeks, Persians and others)’ (Dwivedi 2012:112). The Shudras were later dropped from the Sarvana category(Dwivedi 2012: 112).

The Syrian Gazelle Boy

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Jean-Claude Auger, an anthropologist from the Basque country, was traveling alone across the Spanish Sahara (Rio de Oro) in 1960 when he met some Nemadi nomads, who told him about a wild child a day’s journey away. The next day, he followed the nomads’ directions. On the horizon he saw a naked child “galloping in gigantic bounds among a long cavalcade of white gazelles”. The boy walked on all fours, but occasionally assumed an upright gait, suggesting to Auger that he was abandoned or lost at about seven or eight months, having already learnt to stand. He habitually twitched his muscles, scalp, nose and ears, much like the rest of the herd, in response to the slightest noise. He would eat desert roots with his teeth, pucking his nostrils like the gazelles. He appeared to be herbivorous apart from the occasional agama lizard or worm when plant life was lacking. His teeth edges were level like those of a herbivorous animal. In 1966 an unsuccessful attempt was made to catch the boy in a net suspended from a helicopter; unlike most of the feral children of whom we have records, the gazelle boy was never removed from his wild companions.

Kamala and Amala

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The story of two young girls, Kamala and Amala, is one of the most famous cases of feral children. Kamala was 8 years old and Amala was said to be 1 ½ when they were found in 1920. Both girls had spent most of their lives abandoned and alone. The two were found in Midnapore, India in a wolves’ den. Despite being found together, those who investigated the case believe that the two were not sisters but were simply abandoned around the same time or taken by wolves. The girls were found after stories spread throughout the village of two “ghostly spirit figures” that were often seen with the wolves that lived in the Bengal jungle. The local villagers were scared of the said spirits and called in a Reverend, Joseph Singh, to get to the bottom of it all. To see what was really going on, Singh hid in a tree above the cave and waited. When he saw the wolves exit the cave he waited and then saw two hunched over figures peek their heads out of the cave. He wrote down what he saw, describing them as “hideous looking with foot and body like a human being.” He said that the girls ran on all fours and had no real traits of being human.

Singh eventually captured the girls, though he had no experience in rehabilitating them. The girls slept curled together, growled, tore off their clothing, ate nothing but raw meat, howled, and were physically deformed. The tendons and joints in their arms and legs shortened, making it impossible to walk upright. The two also had no interest in interacting with humans. Some say that their senses were impeccable, especially when it came to hearing and seeing, but even their sense of smell was sharp. Amala eventually died due to a sickness, which then caused Kamala to go into a long-stage of mourning. Singh thought she would die but she did not and he started a rehabilitation program to help heal her- she eventually learned to walk upright and say a few words. She died of kidney failure in 1929.

Gender based inequality

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Gender according to sexual orientation

Heterosexual: attracted to individuals of the opposite sex (straight)
Homosexual: attracted to individuals of the same sex (gay, lesbian)
Bisexual: attracted to both sexes
Queer: attracted to the same or both sexes and/or transgendered individuals
Asexual: not experiencing sexual attractions

Types of gender identity

Maleness/Masculine
Femaleness/Feminine
Two-Spirited- an Aboriginal term for an individual who possesses both male and female spirits, and is thus neither male nor female
Transgendered- a person who challenges strict gender norms (may be transsexual, biologically Intersexed, etc.)
Third Gender- individuals who are categorized as neither male nor female (by their own will or social consensus); term also used in societies who recognize more than two genders
Androgyny- a term that refers to a combination of masculine and feminine characteristics

How were women seen in typical society?

Women as Male’s private property (Father’s property in case of Kanyadan)
No one agreed that forced sex in marriage was sex.
- Sexual relation in marriage was to satisfy husband.
- Women was to be enjoyed.
- Her enjoyment was secondary or accidental only.
Woman’s GOD GIVEN PLACE was – in the kitchen
Women who worked outside their home were
- Embarrassment for their husband and father and brother
- Women who earned more than then husband or boyfriend were embarrassing them.
Unmarried mothers were considered as immoral
Boys who flirted with many girls were considered as naughty and natural but girls who did the same were considered as a slut
University
- Educated women goes to university to find educated men

Gender stereotype

Masculine	Feminine
Active	Passive
presence	absence
independent	dependent
organized	scattered
rational	emotional
logical	illogical
intellectual	intuitive/imaginative

Important gender term during the research

Androcentricity
Male-centered research, or approaching the topic from a male-only perspective

Overgeneralizing
Using data collected from one sex and applying the findings to both sexes

Gender insensitivity
The failure to consider the impact of gender at all in the subject matter in question

Double standards
The same standards should be applied to both sexes in order to not distort findings

Interference
This occurs when a subject under study reacts to the sex of the researcher rather than the subject matter under study

Gender

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SOCIOLOGY: ‘According to Ann Oakley who introduced the term to sociology, sex refer to the biological division into male and female, gender to the parallel and socially unequal division into femininity and masculinity. Gender draws attention therefore to the socially constructed aspects of differences between women and men.

Anthony Giddens: ‘Social expectations about behavior regarded as appropriate for the members of each sex. Gender does not refer to the physical attributes in terms of which men and women differ, but to socially formed traits of masculinity and femininity. The study of gender relations has become one of the most important areas of sociology in recent years, although for a long time they received little attention’

Social Construction of Gender

Nancy Chodorow

Both boys and girls are attached to
Revised Freud’s theory of psycho-sexual development: emphasized “pre-Oedipal” period (birth to about 3)
Attachment & identification, not sexual attraction
Both M & F begin “as if” female: develop “feminine” sense of self in experiencing world with & through mother
Females: develop by continuity — sustaining identification with mother
Males: develop by discontinuity — separating from mother and creating new identity
- Misogyny: “masculinity” created via repression / expulsion of “feminine”

Janet Sayers (critique of Nanacy Chodorow)

The theory ignores the need of women to be detached and autonomous.

Women have aggressiveness. This needs to brought out not repressed.

Gender stratification theory

Functionalist approach

Anthropologist George Murdock saw that women should concentrate on domestic and family responsibilities. And men should work outside.

This argument of his was based on his work that involved the cross-cultural studies of more than 200 societies.

He considered the gender based division of labour as the most logical organization arrangement in society.

Talcott Parson:

Talcott Parson studied industrial society.

Women’s role is to socialize children through emotional or expressive roles: caring for others, forgiving etc

Men’s role is to socialize children through rational role like being aggressive, competitive.

Another role of women is to comfort men who are stressed in their work by providing them with emotional comfort.

John Bowlby

Every children needs mother or at least ‘mother substitute’.

This role cannot be performed by male.

Feminist perspective

Raewyn Connel’s theory of The gender hierarchy

Hegemonic masculinity	Social dominance not through violence but through culture. Hetrosexuality Marriage Authority Paid work Strength Physical toughness
Complicit Masculinity	People who are almost like the hegemonic males and enjoy benefit in society due to it.
Homosexual masculinity	Seen as opposite of real man. Rank at the bottom of gender hierarchy
Emphasized feminity	Old women-motherly characteristics Young women: Sexual receptivity Women like dress Someone to accompany the real men.
Resistant feminities	Hidden from history Who revolt against the system

Shulamith Firestone
‘We are no longer just animals. And the kingdom of nature does not reign absolute. … Thus the ‘natural’ is not necessarily a ‘human’ value. Humanity has begun to transcend Nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origins in nature.’

Elimination of Gender: Firestone did not want to eliminate men, although she didn’t like them much. She believed the gender system oppressed men, too. What she wanted was radical equality. The only way to achieve this, she thought, was to eliminate gender entirely.

Elimination of pregnancy: How? At the core of gender — and inequality — was an accident of biology, she theorized. Women are the ones who are physiologically capable of carrying babies. All gender roles have their roots this simple fact. If you eliminate pregnancy and childbirth, you can eliminate gender. So, she argued, we need to devise ways to reproduce artificially. And until then, women ought to be celibate.

Commune taking care of the children.

Firestone didn’t confine her radicalism to her writing. In 1969, while she was living in New York and writing Dialectic of Sex, she co-founded a women’s organization calledRedstockings that published manifestos, ran consciousness-raising meetings, and organized activism on behalf of a number of feminist causes. Their values included leftist beliefs that we don’t today associate with feminism, like a commitment to socialist revolution. But they also believed deeply in, and campaigned for, the right to safe and legal abortions.

Gender issues Nepal

Literacy Rate: Overall literacy rate (for population aged 5 years and above) has increased from 54.1 percent in 2001 to 65.9 percent in 2011. Male literacy rate is 75.1% compared to female literacy rate of 57.4%. The highest literacy rate is reported in Kathmandu district (86.3 %) and lowest in Humla (47.8%).

Female ownership of fixed assets: Altogether, 19.71 percent of households reported the ownership of land or house or both in the name of female member of the household. In urban areas, 26.77 percent of the households show female-ownership of fixed assets while the percentage stands for 18.02 in rural areas.

Household Head: Female-headed households in the country has increased by about 11 point percent from 14.87% in 2001 to 25.73% in 2011.

Detail theory of John Locke

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Wrote Two Treatises on Government.
The first treatise is concerned almost exclusively with refuting the argument of Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, that political authority was derived from religious authority, also known by the description of the Divine Right of Kings.
The second treatise contains Locke’s own constructive view of the aims and justification for civil government.
Believed that people entered into society to protect their “life, liberty, and property”.
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, admired Locke.
The government’s main job is to protect the citizen’s property.
If they government is not providing you with protection for your property you have the right to revolt.
Justified the American Revolution

Human & Animal Societies

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Need of society for animals and humans

Evolution
Humans and animals both live in society not as their choice between isolation and society but because they are genetically programmed to be living in society. There are of couse exceptional cases in which humans or animals live away from society but in majority of the cases the evolution have made it this way.

Survival
Chances of survival in society is much more present than in isolation. This is true for humans and animals.

Reproduction
After survival the second greatest human instinct is for reproduction. It is easier to find reproduction partners in society than in isolation.

Intelligence

It has been proven through scientific research than human beings and animals learn from experiences of other social mates. This means that if one lives in group then it gives more opportunity for one to learn than when living alone. People and animals learn from each other.

Biological difference between humans and animals

Ability to Speak
The larynx ( voice box) is located at the lower throat in humans than in chimps, one of several features that enable human speech. Human ancestors evolved a descended larynx roughly 350,000 years ago. We also possess a descended hyoid bone — this horseshoe-shaped bone below the tongue, unique in that it is not attached to any other bones in the body, allows us to articulate words when speaking.

Upright Posture
Humans are unique among the primates in how walking fully upright is our chief mode of locomotion. This frees our hands up for using tools. Unfortunately, the changes made in our pelvis for moving on two legs, in combination with babies with large brains, makes human childbirth unusually dangerous compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. A century ago, childbirth was a leading cause of death for women. The lumbar curve in the lower back, which helps us maintain our balance as we stand and walk, also leaves us vulnerable to lower back pain and strain.

Nakedness
We look naked compared to our hairier ape cousins. Surprisingly, however, a square inch of human skin on average possesses as much hair-producing follicles as other primates, or more — humans often just have thinner, shorter, lighter hairs.

Hands
Contrary to popular misconceptions, humans are not the only animals to possess opposable thumbs — most primates do. (Unlike the rest of the great apes, we don’t have opposable big toes on our feet.) What makes humans unique is how we can bring our thumbs all the way across the hand to our ring and little fingers. We can also flex the ring and little fingers toward the base of our thumb. This gives humans a powerful grip and exceptional dexterity to hold and manipulate tools with.

Extraordinary Brains
Without a doubt, the human trait that sets us apart the most from the animal kingdom is our extraordinary brain. Humans don’t have the largest brains in the world — those belong to sperm whales. We don’t even have the largest brains relative to body size — many birds have brains that make up more than 8 percent of their body weight, compared to only 2.5 percent for humans. Yet the human brain, weighing only about 3 pounds when fully grown, give us the ability to reason and think on our feet beyond the capabilities of the rest of the animal kingdom, and provided the works of Mozart, Einstein and many other geniuses.

The human brain is the largest brain of all vertebrates relative to body size
It weighs about 3 pounds (1.4 kilograms)
The brain makes up about 2 percent of a human’s body weight

Clothing
Humans may be called “naked apes,” but most of us wear clothing, a fact that makes us unique in the animal kingdom, save for the clothing we make for other animals. The development of clothing has even influenced the evolution of other species — the body louse, unlike all other kinds, clings to clothing, not hair.

Fire
The human ability to control fire would have brought a semblance of day to night, helping our ancestors to see in an otherwise dark world and keep nocturnal predators at bay. The warmth of the flames also helped people stay warm in cold weather, enabling us to live in cooler areas. And of course it gave us cooking, which some researchers suggest influenced human evolution — cooked foods are easier to chew and digest, perhaps contributing to human reductions in tooth and gut size.

Blush
Turns out, the cheek-reddening reaction is a universal human response to social attention. Everyone does it some more than others. Common blushing triggers include meeting someone important, receiving a compliment and experiencing a strong emotion in a social situation.

Blush biology works like this: Veins in the face dilate, causing more blood to flow into your cheeks and producing a rosy complexion. However, scientists are stumped as to why all that happens, or what function it serves.

Long Childhoods
Humans must remain in the care of their parents for much longer than other living primates. The question then becomes why, when it might make more evolutionary sense to grow as fast as possible to have more offspring. The explanation may be our large brains, which presumably require a long time to grow and learn.

Life after Children
Most animals reproduce until they die, but in humans, females can survive long after ceasing reproduction. This might be due to the social bonds seen in humans — in extended families, grandparents can help ensure the success of their families long after they themselves can have children

Cry
How odd that sadness causes water to spill from our eyes! Among all animals, we alone cry tears of emotion.Not only do they serve the purpose of communicating feelings of distress, scientists believe tears also carry certain undesirable hormones and other proteins that are produced during periods of stress out of the body, which may explain the cathartic effect of “a good cry.”

Socio-cultural difference between humans and animals

Respect for the dead
When a human dies, we all feel sad emotions if we felt a strong bond with that person. We often have elaborate burial ceremonies to show respect for our dead. However, animals rarely do such a thing. Only a few animals have been observed to throw a few leaves on their dead. But animals do not routinely bury their dead like us humans.

Animals are mostly driven on instincts
We humans also have instincts, however, we can control them much better. We are mostly driven by reason. Animals are driven much more by instincts, and only use some reasoning. They have it pre-programmed in their minds from birth on what to do in most situations. Most animals from birth know what foods to eat and how to eat them. They know how to reproduce, where to migrate, and more. Even a baby turtle comes out of it’s shell and immediately knows to swim towards the ocean.

Humans are aware of “self,” and contemplate the afterlife
Other animals do not think of the afterlife. They tend to live in the “now.” They live in the heat of the moment. Their main goals all day long are to eat, sleep, mate, and survive. Humans, however, spend a lot of time thinking of the future, past, and present. We think about ourselves and how we relate to life. We think of what happens when we die.

Humans feel a sense of right and wrong
We all have a basic conscience. Animals kill and never think twice. They kill for food, and they kill based on instincts. They do not stop to think about if they have “sinned.” When a human murders another human, it is out of evil pre-meditation. We know better, but we murder someone anyways. That is a huge difference. Most animals kill purely to eat, or to defend themselves.

Humans have a complex language and communication method
Humans can talk, write, read facial expressions, gestures, and more. Some can even speak multiple languages. Animals do communicate, but they cannot communicate with the level of a human.

Humans use their brains in much more complex ways

The cognitive abilities of a human compared to an animal is incredible. Humans can critically think, invent, find solutions to problems, and much more. Animals are much more simple-minded. An anteater looks for ants all day. A bear gets in the water and slaps salmon out. They never stop to think of a more efficient way of doing things. The bear never creates a net or constructs a fishing pole. They find something that works, and will continue doing it. Humans will always seek out more efficient ways, and even invent complex tools. Again, this gets back to our more complex mental faculties.

Technology
We humans have the ability to quickly learn new technology, and adapt and use that technology. We can create machines and computers that help us to do work more efficiently. Even the most complex animals do not share this feature. The only tool you will likely ever see an animal use is a stick or a rock. And even then they look confused and clumsy with it.

Justice
Only human society goes against nature and seeks justice. Natures is for the survival of the fittest. Human society is governed by the philosophy of justice.

Planning
Only human society plan for the future. Not animal societies.

Religion
Only human society have religion.

Protection of the weak
Only human society allows weak to be protected through laws and rules.

Ralph Dahrendorf & Karl Marx: conflict theory

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

What is Conflict Theory?

Conflict theory generally surrounds the idea that most struggles in society happen because of conflicts between different social classes or groups
Each group struggles to attain more resources and because resources are scarce, they must struggle with other groups
Groups try to protect their own interests, therefore blocking the progress of other groups
From conflict comes social change

Ralf Dahrendorf’s (1929-present) Conflict Theory

Society is always in tension between :

consensus and coercion
function and conflict

The central questioned of all social thought

How do societies stay togather? Two well established positions:

The Utopians (Functional Theory)
- Represented by the Functional Theory
The Rationalists (Conflict Theory)
- Represented by Conflict Theory

Conflict between the two positions is old.

Hobbes vs. Rousseau
Kant vs. Hegel

Utopians are represented by the Functional theory of society
Rationalists are represented by the Conflict theory of society
The two positions are mutually exclusive in most fields and people, but not is sociology.
Good Sociology uses one in A, another in B and both in C. but does not exclude any.
Every Society is at every point subject to the processes of change. Change is everywhere.
Conflict is everywhere
Every Element in a society contributes to its disintegration and change
Every Society is based on coercion of some members by others.
In society there is division of labor but in a division of labor, not every occupation based status is equal.

Dahrendorf’s key concepts : the authority conflict

Different people have different occupation
The different occupation have different status
People’s status increases or decreases according to the link it has with authority.
In society there are many organizations.
Each organization contains two groups
- super-ordinates (order-givers) with authority
- sub-ordinates (order-takers) without authority
In authority relations there is a fundamental conflict between:
- those who have power
- and those who do not have power

Dahrendorf’s key concepts Conflict of interest

The conflict is fundamentally based on two type of interest
- Those With Authority: Their INTEREST is to maintain status quo
- Those Without Authority: Their INTEREST is to change status quo

Dahrendorf’s key concepts : difference between power and authority

Power is essentially tied to the personality of individuals
Authority is always associated with social positions or roles
Dahrendorf was most interested in studying authority
When someone has authority in one setting, that authority does not extend to other social arenas: a boss holds legitimate authority at work but outside of the work setting they cannot legitimately tell people what to do.
Dahrendorf is only concerned in his presentation with authority

Dahrendorf’s key concepts: The Three Types groups

Quasi groups
Groups that are not well organized because they have latent or natural interest but are well conscious of their group interest.

Interest groups
When the latent interest becomes manifest interest then the group becomes conscious about their group interest. Due to this they are organized and can put pressure on the rival groups.

Conflict group
When interest group evolved into an organized group to overthrow the rival group then it is a conflict group.

Dahrendorf’s key argument

Higher the group interest consciousness among quasi groups the more possibility of intergroup conflict between super ordinate and subordinate groups.
More there is a link between organizational authority and the distribution of rewards the more possibility for conflict.
If the movement of subordinate group to higher position is made more difficult the more there is conflict.
If the economic, political or social goals of the organizations are less met then more there is conflict.
More intense the conflict the more possibility of change.

Karl Marx
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a socialist theoretician and activist, a major figure in the history of economic , sociological and philosophical thought, and a great social prophet.

“There must be something rotten in the very core of a social system which increases in wealth without diminishing its misery, and increases in crime even more than its numbers.” -Marx, K. (1859). Population, crime and pauperism.Collected Works, (16).

The main argument of Karl Marx can be summarized as follows:

The purpose of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to explain the origin of the universe.
That the force which shapes the course of history are primarily economic.
That society is divided into two classes: owners and workers.
That there is always a class conflict going on between the two classes.
That the workers are exploited by the owners who misappropriate the surplus value, which is the result of the workers’ labour.
That this exploitation can be put an end to by nationalisation of the instruments of production i.e. abolition of private property.
That this exploitation is leading to greater and greater impoverishment of the workers.
That this growing impoverishment of the workers is resulting in a revolutionary spirit among the workers and the conversion of the class conflict into a class struggle.
That as the workers outnumber the owners, the workers are bound to capture the State and establish their rule, which he called the dictatorship of the proletariat.
These factors are irresistible and therefore socialism is inevitable.

Detailed Study of Karl Marx

Fundamental Concepts (derived from Marx):

1. The “Mode of Production”: Basic system of production ? Impacts all other social relations

“Mode of production” describes the economic base of politics.
Societies are assumed to have developed through a series of “modes” of production.
Marx was particularly interested in explaining the transition from the feudal mode of production to Capitalism and, eventually to Socialism.

2. The “Relations of Production”:

On top of the economic base of society, or mode of production, Marxists assume that there is a political and social superstructure, or “relations of production” which is deeply influenced by the mode of production.
The “social superstructure” is society’s laws, politics, culture and ideology
Determined by mode of production (?) Contentious issue:
Relations of production were actually determined by political struggle between different groups in society over the control of the mode of production.
- E.g. For example, despite the fact that feudalism was based on aristocratic control over land and agricultural labour, this did not simply determine that there would always be a feudal set of relations of production. Rather, capitalists, emerging industrial entrepreneurs, were able, through political struggle to alter the relations of production in way that eventually led to the emergence of a dominant capitalist mode of production.
- Best way to say it . . . : Marx and history – the dominant group in the dominant mode of production . . . But people make their own history, just . . . .
Marx also argued that societies could simultaneously have multiple modes of production and in particular that during times of transition, such as from feudalism to capitalism, that competing modes of production could coexist for quite some time; thus, Marxists argue for the importance of examining the Social Formation.

3. The importance of history: Specific historical & geographical settings have different modes/relations of production

Each society may have a different balance, or mix, of modes of production and thus the actual social formation of the society must be closely examined before we make assumptions about the relations of production in that society.
The reason studying the historical social formation of a society is so important to Marxists is that underling all modes and relations of production is a basic set of social classes.
- Class, and class analysis is the single most important concept in socialist analysis.
- Where liberalism focuses on individuals as the basic unit of analysis, socialist political economy lumps individuals into broad social groupings and attempts to understand those groups, or classes, as the basic unit of analysis.

4. Class:

Each mode of production organizes individuals into classes:
- Those who own and control the means of production; and
- Those who sell their labour

Key points:
Classes are social collections of individuals that have shared interests in the distribution of benefits emerging from the mode of production.

5. They often share a similar ideology and values

E.g. in the capitalist mode of production: Capitalists (the bourgeoisie – in traditional Marxist terminology) have a shared set of interests in promoting liberal political economy, a liberal ideology that supports their ability to generate profits and a legal system that ensures their continued private ownership of the means of production. Workers (the proletariat) have an interest in collectively advancing their own claims to a greater share of the profits emerging from production – whether that be through the collective seizure of capitalist private property, progressive/redistributive tax laws or through unionization and collective bargaining to increase wages.
These opposed interests are the basis of the “class struggle”

Class Struggle

While Marx argued that modes of production play a role in determining the superstructure of politics (what laws there will be, or, what the state will do), ultimately all Marxists agree that the real driving force in this process, is class struggle and indeed Marxists see “politics” as a struggle between productive classes for the control of production.
- This “Drives” history
Since several modes of production may exist simultaneously, often political struggles in each society are very complex. Different factions struggle for political dominance; however, the basic divergence in interests produced by the process of production creates a tension which plays a determining role in political struggles.

Marxist Economics:

The starting point for all Socialist analyses is Karl Marx’s Capital which offers an alternative “Marxist economics” of capitalism to that provided by liberal economics. Marx developed a number of important points in his analyses of capitalism. Firstly, much like the classical political economists, (Smith and Ricardo) . . . .

1. Labor the basis of all value

Total direct & indirect labor in production determines “true price” of product. Marx argued that the value or “true price” of any good, over the long run was determined by how much labour went into producing that good.

[What is indirect and direct labour?] The total direct and indirect labour used to produce a good determines the value of a good.

Secondly, much like the classical political economists, Marx argued that profits were the engine of growth in capitalist economies, but he argued that profits were based on surplus value.

2. Profits based on “surplus value” Occurred when capitalists kept the difference between how much the labor cost them in producing a good, and how much they could sell that good for

Even though capitalists and workers need each other in the process of production, Marx argued that because workers had no choice but to sell their labour (or otherwise starve) while capitalists could choose not to invest their savings (without facing the prospect of immediate starvation) that capitalists had a kind of advantage over workers to artificially reduce their wages.

= This artificial reduction of wages created surplus value.

Furthermore since the extraction of this surplus value is the basis of profit, and since profit is the engine of growth in capitalism,
- Capitalism always exploitative Workers had to be exploited or the system would not work.

3. Increases in profit only achieved by increasing extraction of surplus value Marx argued that the employment of capital (or investment) itself produced no surplus value. Over the long term, the only way that investors could make profits was by employing people. The only way profit levels could be increased was by increasing the extraction of surplus value from workers. This could be done either by increasing:

Relative surplus value (which would mean increasing the productivity of workers by forcing workers to work harder or more efficiently), Or by increasing the:
Absolute surplus value (by forcing workers to work longer hours for less money).

Marx argued that once created,

4. Capitalism was dynamic – would spread. Efficiency in organizing production and extracting surplus value made it superior

It is important to understand this – Marx and those influenced by Marx assumed that capitalism was extremely efficient – it was much better than any mode of production that had come before; however, unlike liberals, they were deeply concerned about the levels of inequality that capitalism produced. Capitalism based on fundamental “tensions”:

Once Marx developed this understanding of how Capitalism “worked” he went on to argue that the inherent logic of Capitalism created basic tensions that would lead to crises and even, eventually a complete collapse of the system. Marx argued that the economic competition between capitalists, at the core of the system, created three main problems:

1. Economic concentration: Competitive markets produced “concentration”

E.g. monopolies Eroded market efficiency assumed by neoclassical liberal economics

2. “Falling rate of profit” Competition forced firms to continually expand their investments in new technology and machinery to remain competitive. Because profits came only from exploiting workers, these investments on their own did not create higher rates of profit.

As the ratio of indirect labour (machinery) grew in relation to direct labour, there would be a steady decline in the rate of profit. The only way to reverse this trend was by increasing the exploitation of workers – making them work longer or harder, or for less money.

3. Growing exploitation of workers: Falling rate of profit required greater exploitation of workers Gradually, workers would earn less money with which they could buy goods. Falling rate of profit led to greater exploitation

Produced “crisis of under-consumption” = Recessions and unemployment

Marx thought that this trend towards under-consumption would ultimately undermine Capitalism – that capitalism would have to be replaced by some sort of socialism in which consumption was ensured, possibly by abandoning Capitalism’s competitive markets for direct state ownership of the means of production.

Bottom Line: Capitalism prone towards crises and collapse

Capitalism, although volatile, has proven to be extremely flexible and dynamic, and has somehow avoided the complete crises predicted by Marx.

Traian Caldarar

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Another recent case of a feral child, Traian Caldarar (found in 2002) is often referred to as ‘the Romanian Dog Boy’ or ‘Mowgli,’ after the main character in the Jungle book. He had lived apart from his family for 3 years since the age of 4. When he was found at the age of 7 he was said to be the size of an average 3 year old due to a lack of proper nutrition. His mother was a victim of domestic violence who left her husband. It is believed that Traian also ran away from the home sometime afterwards. Traian lived in the wild and when he was found in 2002 in Brasov, Rom?nia. He found shelter in a cardboard box covered with a sheet. Traian had a severe case of rickets, poor circulation, and infected wounds. Because of his age, those who discovered Traian believed that stray dogs helped to keep him alive.

Traian was only found because a car belonging to a shepherd named Manolescu Ioan broke down and he had to walk through pastures, during which he spotted the boy. When he was found, the body of a dog was found nearby and many assume that he was eating the dog as a way to stay alive. Once he was taken into care, he would sleep under his bed instead of on it and would often want to eat. When he didn’t have food he became very irritable and often slept right after meals.

In 2007, it was reported that Traian was doing well under the care of his grandfather and in grade 3 at school. When asked about his school, he said “I like it here, coloring, play and learn to write and read. We have toys, cars, teddy bears, and the food is very good,” (translasted from Romanian newsite

Sub-divisions of Sociology

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Sub-division of Sociology is also known as branch of Sociology.

Some of the branches of Sociology are given below:-

Historical Sociology
- It is study of cultural- historical facts of Society.
- Sociology usually accepts 50 year's old facts as historical facts. e.g.; Muluki Ain, 1910 B.S – punishment based on caste. New Muluki Ain, 2020 B.S – Abolition of Caste Discrimination.
Sociology of Knowledge
- It is study of knowledge as social product.
- It believes an idea that human society and its very structure can influence knowledge.

e.g.; National Anthem generates love for country in the heart of people.

Maoist's people's song had encouraged Nepalese youth to take part in People's War.

Sociology of Law
- It recognizes law as part of society.
- It studies impact of law in society e.g.; Impact of Muluki Ain, 1910 B.S. in past Nepalese Society.

Impact of Muluki Ain,2020 B.S. in existing Society.

Social or Human Ecology
- It Studies impact of environment upon social life. e.g.; variation of culture, language, dress up, food habit Mountain, Hill & Tarai of Nepal effect of climate change.

Sociology of Education

- It studies education as and agent of transmission of culture.
- It stress upon the social importance of education and meritocracy i.e., rule by the educated and talented persons. Job placement on the basis of shill & educational qualification not by Nepotism or favoritism.
Political Sociology
- It studies relationship between social structures and political institutions, such as government and other organ of state.
- eg; People's aspiration towards freedom determines the government of state as democratic or autocratic.
Economic Sociology
- It is concerned with economic activities.
- Social Structures determines economic activities e.g.; Rural economy, urban economic, etc.
Sociology of Religion
- It analysis the religious behavior of human beings from a sociological point of view.
- Religious belief determines people's dress up, food habit, etc.
Industrial Sociology
- It studies impact of industrialization is Social life.
- The main cause of urbanization is industrialization.
- Rural economy converted over nightly to urban economy because of industrialization.
- It studies industrial relation, i.e. relationship between employer, capital and labor. (industrialist)

Sociology

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Introduction

Social Contract Theory and Organismic Theory

Cases of growth of Self and Social Heritage

Human and animal societies

Human & Animal Societies

Social control

Social Control

Social order

Social order: Meaning, definition, Nature and Problem

Social Deviance and Conformity

Social Deviance and Conformity

Social Stratification: Caste, Class, Ethnicity and Gender

Historical evolution of Nepali Nationhood (since the birth of Nepali Nation-state)

Sociological Theories

Social Deviance and Conformity

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Social Deviance:
Deviant behavior is any behavior that is contrary to the dominant norms of society. There are many different theories on what causes a person to perform deviant behavior, including biological explanations, psychological explanations, and sociological explanations. Following are some of the major sociological explanations for deviant behavior.

Types of Crimes

Crimes Against Persons
Crimes against persons, also called personal crimes, include murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery. Personal crimes are unevenly distributed in the United States, with young, urban, poor, and racial minorities committing these crimes more than others.

Crimes Against Property
Property crimes involve theft of property without bodily harm, such as burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson. Like personal crimes, young, urban, poor, and racial minorities generally commit these crimes more than others.

Crimes Against Morality
Crimes against morality are also called victimless crimes because there is not complainant, or victim. Prostitution, illegal gambling, and illegal drug use are all examples of victimless crimes.

White-Collar Crime
White-collar crimes are crimes that committed by people of high social status who commit their crimes in the context of their occupation. This includes embezzling (stealing money from one’s employer), insider trading, and tax evasion and other violations of income tax laws.

White-collar crimes generally generate less concern in the public mind than other types of crime, however in terms of total dollars, white-collar crimes are even more consequential for society. Nonetheless, these crimes are generally the least investigated and least prosecuted.

Organized Crime
Organized crime is crime committed by structured groups typically involving the distribution of illegal goods and services to others. Many people think of the Mafia when they think of organized crime, but the term can refer to any group that exercises control over large illegal enterprises (such as the drug trade, illegal gambling, prostitution, weapons smuggling, or money laundering).

A key sociological concept in the study or organized crime is that these industries are organized along the same lines as legitimate businesses and take on a corporate form. There are typically senior partners who control the business’ profits, workers who manage and work for the business, and clients who buy the goods and services that the organization provides.

A Sociological Look at Crime

Arrest data show a clear pattern of arrests in terms of race, gender, and class. For instance, as mentioned above, young, urban, poor, and racial minorities generally commit personal and property crimes more so than other demographic groups. To sociologists, the question posed by this data is whether this reflects actual differences in committing crimes among different groups or whether this reflects differential treatment by the criminal justice system. Studies show that the answer here is “both.” Certain groups are in fact more likely to commit crimes than others because crime is linked to patterns of inequality in the United States. However, the process of prosecution in the criminal justice system is also significantly related to patterns of race, class, and gender inequality. We see this in the official arrest statistics, in treatment by the police, in sentencing patterns, and in studies of imprisonment.

Deviance Amplification

Definition: Deviance amplification is a process, often performed by the mass media, in which the extent and seriousness of deviant behavior is exaggerated. The effect is to create a greater awareness and interest in deviance which results in more deviance being uncovered, giving the impression that the initial exaggeration was actually a true representation.

Structural Strain Theory

Robert K. Merton developed the structural strain theory as an extension of the functionalist perspective on deviance. This theory traces the origins of deviance to the tensions that are caused by the gap between cultural goals and the means people have available to achieve those goals.

Culturally Accepted Goals Vs. Culturally Approved Means

Societies are characterized by both culture and social structure. Culture establishes goals for people in society while social structure provides (or fails to provide) the means for people to achieve those goals. According to Merton, in a well-integrated society, people use accepted and appropriate means to achieve the goals that society establishes. In this case, the goals and the means of the society are in balance. It is when the goals and means are not in balance with each other that deviance is likely to occur. This imbalance between cultural goals and structurally available means can actually lead an individual into deviant behavior.

The achievement of economic success in the U.S. is a great example that helps further explain the structural strain theory. In the United States, economic success is a goal that most everybody strives for. The legitimate means to economic success are education and jobs. Not all groups of people have equal access to these means, however. The result is structural strain that produces deviance. Lower class individuals are most likely to experience these strains because they aim for the same goals as the rest of society, however they have blocked opportunities for success. These individuals are therefore more likely to turn to crime and deviance as a way to achieve economic success. There is a high correlation that exists between unemployment and crime and the structural strain theory helps explain this relationship.

Five Categories of People

Merton further categorized people into five general categories with regards to their relationship to culturally accepted goals and the means to achieving those goals.

Conformists. Conformists are people who believe in both the established cultural goals of society as well as the normative means for attaining those goals. They follow the rules of society. An example would be a successful investor or businessman who is economically successful because of their employment or hard work.

Ritualists. Ritualists are individuals who do not believe in the established cultural goals of society, but they do believe in and abide by the means for attaining those goals. For example, a middle-management worker who cares little for wealth but still continues to climb the socioeconomic ladder through traditional means and hard work.

Innovators. Innovators are those individuals that accept the cultural goals of society but reject the conventional methods of attaining those goals. These people usually have a blatant disregard for the conventional methods that have been established in attaining wealth and are generally those we regard as criminals. An example is a stockbroker who engages in illegal insider trading. The cultural goal of wealth is accepted, but nontraditional means of insider trading are used. Drug dealers, thieves, and prostitutes are also examples of innovators.

Retreatists. Retreatists are individuals who reject both the cultural goals and the accepted means of attaining those goals. They simply avoid both the goals and means established by society without replacing those norms with their own counter-cultural forces. Severe alcoholics, some homeless people, and hermits are examples of retreatists.

Rebels. Rebels not only reject both the established cultural goals and the accepted means of attaining those goals, but they substitute new goals and new means of attaining those goals. Examples of rebels include the American Nazi party, “skinheads,” and the Ku Klux Klan.

Labeling Theory

Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behavior. It stems from the work of W.I. Thomas who, in 1928, wrote, “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”

Labeling theory begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions. Deviance is therefore not a set of characteristics of individuals or groups, but rather it is a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants and the context in which criminality is being interpreted.

In order to understand the nature of deviance itself, we must first understand why some people are tagged with a deviant label and others are not. Those who represent forces of law and order and those who enforce the boundaries of proper behavior, such as the police, court officials, experts, and school authorities, provide the main source of labeling. By applying labels to people, and in the process creating categories of deviance, these people are reinforcing the power structure of society.

Many of the rules that define deviance and the contexts in which deviant behavior is labeled as deviant are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic minorities for minority groups. In other words, the more powerful and dominant groups in society create and apply deviant labels to the subordinate groups. For example, many children engage in activities such as breaking windows, stealing fruit from other people’s trees, climbing into other people’s yards, or playing hooky from school. In affluent neighborhoods, these acts may be regarded by parents, teachers, and police as innocent aspects of the process of growing up. In poor areas, on the other hand, these same activities might be seen as tendencies towards juvenile delinquency.

Once a person is labeled as deviant, it is extremely difficult to remove that label. The deviant person becomes stigmatized as a criminal or deviant and is likely to be considered, and treated, as untrustworthy by others. The deviant individual is then likely to accept the label that has been attached, seeing himself or herself as deviant, and act in a way that fulfills the expectations of that label. Even if the labeled individual does not commit any further deviant acts than the one that caused them to be labeled, getting rid of that label can be very hard and time-consuming. For example, it is usually very difficult for a convicted criminal to find employment after release from prison because of their label as ex-criminal. They have been formally and publicly labeled a wrongdoer and are treated with suspicion likely for the remainder of their lives.

Critiques of Labeling Theory
One critique of labeling theory is that is emphasizes the interactive process of labeling and ignores the processes that lead to the deviant acts. Such processes might include differences in socialization, attitudes, and opportunities.

A second critique of labeling theory is that it is still not clear whether or not labeling actually has the effect of increasing deviant behavior. Delinquent behavior tends to increase following conviction, but is this the result of labeling itself as the theory suggests? It is very difficult to say, since many other factors may be involved, including increased interaction with other delinquents and learning new criminal opportunities.

Biological Explanations Of Deviant Behavior

Lombroso’s Theory

Cesare Lombroso was an Italian criminologist of the mid to late 1800s. He rejected the Classical School, which believed that crime was a characteristic of human nature and instead believed that criminality was inherited. From this belief, he developed a theory of deviance in which a person’s bodily constitution indicates whether or not an individual is a “born criminal.” These “born criminals” are a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution with the physical makeup, mental capabilities, and instincts of primitive man.

In developing his theory, Lombroso observed the physical characteristics of Italian prisoners and compared them to those of Italian soldiers. He concluded that the criminals were physically different. The physical characteristics that he used to identify prisoners included an asymmetry of the face or head, large monkey-like ears, large lips, a twisted nose, excessive cheekbones, long arms, and excessive wrinkles on the skin. Lombroso declared that males with five or more of these characteristics could be marked as born criminals. Females, on the other hand, only needed as few as three of these characteristics to be born criminals.

Lombroso also believed that tattoos were markings of born criminals because they stood as evidence of both immortality and insensitivity to physical pain.

Sheldon’s Theory of Body Types

William Sheldon was an American psychologist from the early to mid 1900s who spent his life observing the varieties of human bodies. As a result, he came up with three types of human bodies: ectomorphs, endomorphs, and mesomorphs.

Ectomorphs are thin and fragile. Their body is described as flat-chested, fragile, lean, lightly muscled, small shouldered, and thin. Celebrities that could be described as ectomorphs include Kate Moss, Edward Norton, and Lisa Kudrow.

Endomorphs are considered soft and fat. They are described as having a soft body, underdeveloped muscles, a round physique, and they often have difficulty losing weight. John Goodman, Roseanne Barr, and Jack Black are all celebrities that would be considered endomorphs.

Mesomorphs are muscular and athletic. Their body is described as hourglass shaped (female) or rectangular shaped (male), muscular, has excellent posture, gains muscle easily, and has thick skin. Famous mesomorphs include Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone. Mesomorphs, according to Sheldon, are the most prone to commit crime or deviant behaviors.

Y Chromosome Theory

Patricia Ann Jacobs is a British geneticist, XYY syndrome is a genetic condition in which a human male has an extra male (Y) chromosome, giving a total of 47 chromosomes instead of the more usual 46. This produces a 47,XYY karyotype, which occurs in 1 in 1,000 male births. The extra Y chromosome theory is the belief that criminals have an extra Y chromosome, giving them an XYY chromosome makeup rather than an XY makeup, that creates a strong compulsion within them to commit crimes. This person is sometimes called the “super male.” Some studies have found that the proportion of XYY males in the prison population is higher than the general male population (1 to 3 percent versus less than 1 percent), however other studies don’t provide evidence that supports this theory. Patricia Ann Jacobs FRS FMedSci is a British geneticist,

Conformity:

Conformity is the tendency to align your attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those around you. It’s a powerful force that can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler unconscious influence. As much as we like to think of ourselves as individuals, the fact is that we’re driven to fit in, and that usually means going with the flow.

Conformity involves changing your behaviors in order to “fit in” or “go along” with the people around you. In some cases, this social influence might involve agreeing with or acting like the majority of people in a specific group, or it might involve behaving in a particular way in order to be perceived as “normal” by the group.

Definitions of Conformity

“Conformity is the most general concept and refers to any change in behavior caused by another person or group; the individual acted in some way because of influence from others. Note that conformity is limited to changes in behavior caused by other people; it does not refer to effects of other people on internal concepts like attitudes or beliefs… Conformity encompasses compliance and obedience, because it refers to any behavior that occurs as a result of others’ influence – no matter what the nature of the influence.” (Breckler, Olson, & Wiggins, Social Psychology Alive,2006)
“Conformity can be defined as yielding to group pressures, something which nearly all of us do some of the time. Suppose, for example, you go with friends to see a film. You didn’t think the film was very good, but all your friends thought that it was absolutely brilliant. You might be tempted to conform by pretending to agree with their verdict on the film rather than being the odd one out.” (Eysenck, Psychology: An International Perspective,2004)

Why Do We Conform?

Researchers have found that people conform for a number of different reasons. In many cases, looking to the rest of the group for clues for how we should behave can actually be helpful. Other people might have greater knowledge or experience than we do, so following their lead can actually be instructive. In other cases, we conform to the expectations of the group in order to avoid looking foolish. This tendency can become particularly strong in situations where we aren’t quite sure how to act or where the expectations are ambiguous.

Deautsch and Gerard (1955) identified two key reasons why people conform: informational influence and normative influence.

Informational influence happens when people change their behavior in order to be correct. In situations where we are unsure of the correct response, we often look to others who are better informed and more knowledgeable and use their lead as a guide for our own behaviors. In a classroom setting, for example, this might involve agreeing with the judgments of another classmate who you perceive as being highly intelligent.

Normative influence stems from a desire to avoid punishments (such as going along with the rules in class even though you don’t agree with them) and gain rewards (such as behaving in a certain way in order to get people to like you).

Types of Conformity
As mentioned previously, normative and informational influences are two important types of conformity, but there are also a number of other reasons why we conform. The following are some of the major types of conformity.

Normative conformity involves changing one’s behavior in order to fit in with the group.
Informational conformity happens when a person lacks knowledge and looks to the group for information and direction.
Identification occurs when people conform to what is expected of them based upon their social roles. Zimbardo’s famous Stanford Prison Experiment is a good example of people altering their behavior in order to fit into their expected roles.
Compliance involves changing one’s behavior while still internally disagreeing with the group.
Internalization occurs when we change our behavior because we want to be like another person.

Factors That Influence Conformity

The difficulty of the task: Difficult tasks can lead to both increased and decreased conformity. Not knowing how to perform a difficult task makes people more likely to conform, but increased difficulty can also make people more accepting of different responses, leading to less conformity
Individual differences: Personal characteristics such as motivation to achieve and strong leadership abilities are linked with a decreased tendency to conform.
The size of the group: People are more likely to conform in situations that involve between three and five other people.
Characteristics of the situation: People are more likely to conform in ambiguous situations where they are unclear about how they should respond.
Cultural differences: Researchers have found that people from collectivist cultures are more likely to conform.

Examples of Conformity

A teenager dresses in a certain style because he wants to fit in with the rest of the guys in his social group.
A 20-year-old college student drinks at a sorority party because all her friends are doing it and she does not want to be the odd one out.
A woman reads a book for her book club and really enjoys it. When she attends her book club meeting, the other members all disliked the book. Rather than go against the group opinion, she simply agrees with the others that the book was terrible.
A student is unsure about the answer to a particular question posed by the teacher. When another student in the class provides an answer, the confused student concurs with the answer believing that the other student is smarter and better informed.

Some theoretical and experimental explanations

What is the Bystander Effect?
The term bystander effect refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress. When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses.

In a series of classic studies, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley (1) found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies depending on how many other observers are in the room. In one experiment, subjects were placed in one of three treatment conditions: alone in a room, with two other participants or with two confederates who pretended to be normal participants.

As the participants sat filling out questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room. When participants were alone, 75% reported the smoke to the experimenters. In contrast, just 38% of participants in a room with two other people reported the smoke. In the final group, the two confederates in the experiment noted the smoke and then ignored it, which resulted in only 10% of the participants reporting the smoke.

Example of the Bystander Effect
The most frequently cited example of the bystander effect in introductory psychology textbooks is the brutal murder of a young woman named Catherine “Kitty” Genovese. On Friday, March 13, 1964, 28-year-old Genovese was returning home from work. As she approached her apartment entrance, she was attacked and stabbed by a man later identified as Winston Moseley.

Despite Genovese’s repeated calls for help, none of the dozen or so people in the nearby apartment building who heard her cries called police to report the incident. The attack first began at 3:20 AM, but it was not until 3:50 AM that someone first contacted police.

Initially reported in a 1964 New York Times article, the story sensationalized the case and reported a number of factual inaccuracies. While frequently cited in psychology textbooks, an article in the September 2007 issue of American Psychologist concluded that the story is largely misrepresented mostly due to the inaccuracies repeatedly published in newspaper articles and psychology textbooks.

Explanations for the Bystander Effect
There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect. First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present.

The second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous(2). In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the 38 witnesses reported that they believed that they were witnessing a “lover’s quarrel,” and did not realize that the young woman was actually being murdered.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

An Experiment in the Psychology of Imprisonment

Work Experience.
In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo, a former classmate ofStanley Milgram (who is best-known for his famous obedience experiment, was interested in expanding upon Milgram’s research. He wanted to further investigate the the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

The question the researchers asked was how would the participants react when placed in a simulated prison environment. “Suppose you had only kids who were normally healthy, psychologically and physically, and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed. Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place—would their goodness triumph?” Zimbardo explained in one interview.

The Participants
The researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Standford University’s psychology building, and then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The participants were selected from a larger group of 70 volunteers because they had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues and had no major medical conditions. The volunteers agreed to participate for a one- to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.

The Setting and Procedures
The simulated prison included three six by nine foot prison cells. Each cell held three prisoners and included three cots. Other rooms across from the cells were utilized for the prison guards and warden. One very small space was designated as the solitary confinement room, and yet another small room served as the prison yard.

The 24 volunteers were then randomly assigned to either the prisoner group or the guard group. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24-hours a day for the duration of the study. Guards, on the other hand, were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, guards were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift. Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras and microphones.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment
While the Stanford Prison Experiment was originally slated to last 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six days due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety.

While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were generally hostile or even dehumanizing. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners, while the prisoners became passive and depressed. Five of the prisoners began to experience such severe negative emotions, including crying and acute anxiety, that they had to be released from the study early.

Even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, overlooked the abusive behavior of the prison guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment.

“Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class,” Zimbardo later wrote in his book The Lucifer Effect.

What Do the Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment Mean?
According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not normally act in their everyday lives or in other situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control, became passive and depressed.

Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently cited as an example of unethical research. The experiment could not be replicated by researchers today because it fails to meet the standards established by numerous ethical codes, including the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association. Zimbardo acknowledges the ethical problems with the study, suggesting that “although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough.”

Other critics suggest that the study lacks generalizability due to a variety of factors. The unrepresentative sample of participants (mostly white and middle class males) makes it difficult to apply the results to a wider population.

The study is also criticized for its lack of ecological validity. While the researchers did their best to recreate a prison setting, it is simply not possible to perfectly mimic all of the environmental and situational variables of prison life.

Despite some of the criticism, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains an important study in our understanding of how the situation can influence human behavior. The study recently garnered attention after reports of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses in Iraq became known. Many people, including Zimbardo himself, suggest that the abuses at Abu Ghraib might be real-world examples of the same results observed in Zimbardo’s experiment.

Research and Experiments on Conformity

Jenness (1932): 'Beans.'
A basic study in which Jenness gave a jar of beans to individuals and got them to estimate the number of beans inside. He then grouped the same participants together and got them to discuss the contents. Later when they were separated and asked their opinions Jenness found that the estimates had converged around a central figure. Jenness’ 1932 Experiment: In one of the earliest experiments on conformity, Jenness asked participants to estimate the number of beans in a bottle. They first estimated the number individually and then later as a group. After they were asked as a group, they were then asked again individually and the experimenter found that their estimates shifted from their original guess to closer to what other members of the group had guessed. Conclusion: when we are unsure of an answer we look to others for help assuming that a majority figure will be more reliable.

Asch Experiment
Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also participants arrive and are seated at a table in a small room.

You don’t know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You’re the only real participant.

The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people’s visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards.

On some occasions the other “participants” unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.

What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you “stick to your guns” and trust your own eyes?

If you were involved in this experiment how do you think you would behave? Would you conform to the majority’s viewpoint?

Solomon Asch – Conformity Experiment
Asch believed that the main problem with Sherif’s (1935) conformity experiment was that there was no correct answer to the ambiguous autokinetic experiment. How could we be sure that a person conformed when there was no correct answer?

Asch (1951) devised what is now regarded as a classic experiment in social psychology, whereby there was an obvious answer to a line judgment task. If the participant gave an incorrect answer it would be clear that this was due to group pressure.

Aim: Solomon Asch (1951) conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.

Procedure: Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity, whereby 50 male students from Swarthmore College in the USA participated in a ‘vision test’. Using a line judgment task, Asch put a naive participant in a room with seven confederates.

The confederates had agreed in advance what their responses would be when presented with the line task. The real participant did not know this and was led to believe that the other seven participants were also real participants like themselves.

Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was most like the target line. The answer was always obvious. The real participant sat at the end of the row and gave his or her answer last.

There were 18 trials in total and the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 trails (called the critical trials). Asch was interested to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view. Asch’s experiment also had a control condition where there were no confederates, only a “real participant”.

Results: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.

Over the 12 critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% of participant never conformed. In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer

Conclusion: Why did the participants conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought “peculiar”. A few of them said that they really did believe the group’s answers were correct.

Caste inequality

Sociology BA LLB — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Class based inequality

‘India lives in her villages, we’re told, in every other sanctimonious public speech. That’s bullshit, just a figleaf. India dies in her villages.’
– Arundhati Roy

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: ie, the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.”
– Karl Marx

‘[Classes are] large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it.’- Vladimir Lenin, A Great Beginning – June, 1919

Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: Entries A-F:

‘The main body of class analysis is based on Marxist and Weberian approaches. The Marxist conception of class defines it as a group of people with a common relationship to the structure of political and economic power within a particular society. The Weberian perspective views class as a group of individuals who are categorized according to common socioeconomic indicators that are termed ‘life chances’. While the Marxist and Weberian approaches differ in many respects they share three important characteristics. First both approaches hold the control of economic resources as central to class analysis. Second the approaches define a particular class location in relation to its links with other class location in relation to its links with other class locations. Third they both view class as an explanatory factor in determining the means and limitations of an individual’s pursuit of material resources such as income’.

‘We can define class as a large scale grouping of people who share common economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead. Ownership of wealth together with occupation are the chief bases of class differences’- Anthony Giddens.

Erik Olin Wright:

Three types of classes:

Control over investment or money capital
Control over factory and offices
Control over labour power.

Above 85 percent people of the world belong to third category.

Class according to Max Weber

Max Weber argued that class can be understood by understanding people’s access to economic wealth, social prestige and political power( three-component theory of stratification).

Economic wealth: There are people who own property and there are those don’t. And there are those who own very less.

Social Prestige/status: There are people who are highly respected in society because of their status. For example people who occupy certain position are more respected than people who do not occupy that position. For example a professor who owns no car (economic wealth) is more respected in society than a thief who owns three such cars. This is social prestige.

Political power: Sometimes people with no economic wealth and no social status have more power to influence their will in society than those who have (wealth and status). For example a woman without wealth or status can impose her will as against the will of rich or prestigious male in society because such woman may have support from organized sources such as women’s workers’ union. These organized sources may be religious, ethnic, racial, ideological but it is powerful because it can force society to accept their will. Weber sees class divided into class (economic wealth), status (social prestige) and party (political power).

Karl Marx and the theory of class

For Karl Marx there is only two types of classes. One is called the dominant class and another is the dominated class. The main difference between these two is that the dominant class owns the means of production (factory for example) and the dominated class workers on the means of production to produce (work as a factory worker). For Karl Marx the class that owns the means of production (ie wealth) automatically controls political power and social status.

Marx saw different dominant class in different economic society with different means of production. Here are some examples:

Primitive Communism Society

There are no classes in this society

Slave Master Society

Exploited slave class and the slave owning class called the masters class.

Feudalism

Feudal lords (exploiters – ruling class) who owns the agricultural land and serfs (exploited class) who work in these lands. Bourgeois or traders class destroy feudalism. They free serfs from dependence on lords and thus prepare the ground for capitalistic society.

Capitalistic society

Exploitation of workers (proletariat) by capitalists (bourgeoisie).

Socialistic society

Working class who wants socialism and controls the state and former capitalists who want to go back to capitalistic society.

Communistic society

No class

Class system is different from caste, ethnicity and gender:

Class system are not based on religious and legal provisions. For example the people of two different classes can marry.
Individual’s class is achieved and not ascribed.
Class is fluid that means there can be social mobility upwards or downwards.
Class differences are based on economic differences between groups or individuals.

Class structure in Nepal

Ownership of housing units: Altogether, 85.26 percent of the households reside in their own house whereas 12.81 percent in rented, 0.63 percent in institutional and 1.30 percent in other arrangements. In urban areas, 40.22 percent live in rented house. Kathmandu district has the highest percentage (58.65) of households living in rented house.
Type of foundation of house: Nearly ten percent (9.94 %) of total households live in houses with the foundation having RCC pillar, 17.57 percent households in house with foundation made up of cement-bonded bricks, 24.9 percent in wooden pillar, 44.21 percent in mud-bonded bricks and 2.33 in other type of foundations. In urban areas, 28.42 percent of the households live in houses with the foundation having RCC pillars ( reinforced concrete column )

Usual fuel for cooking: About two-third of the total households (about 64 percent) use Firewood as the usual source of fuel for cooking followed by LPG (21.03 percent), cow

dung (10.38 percent). Bio-gas and Kerosene is used for cooking by 2.43 and 1.03 percent

of the total households respectively. Very few households (0.08 percent) use Electricity as usual fuel for cooking. In urban areas, more than two third (67.68 percent) of the total households use LPG as their usual fuel for cooking.

Toilet in the house: More than one third (38.17 percent) of the total households do not have a toilet in their houses. Almost all the households without toilet (95.4%) are in rural areas. More than 75 percent of households in Saptari, Siraha, Rolpa and Rautahat districts do not have a toilet in their houses.

Household facility	Nepal	Urban	Rural
Radio	50.82	53.56	50.17
TV	36.45	60.67	30.66
Cable TV	19.33	53.80	11.10
Internet	3.33	12.11	1.24
Telephone	7.37	22.66	3.72
Mobile phone	64.63	84.07	59.98
Motor	1.57	4.03	0.98
Motorcycle	9.58	23.62	6.23
Cycle	32.38	29.95	32.96
Refrigerator	7.16	23.21	3.33

Absent member in households: One in every four households (25.42%; 1.38 million households) reported that at least one member of their household is absent or is living out of country. Total number of absent population is found to be 1,921,494 against 0 .76million in 2001. The highest proportion (44.81 percent) of absent population is from the age group 15 to 24 years. Gulmi, Arghakhanchi and Pyuthan districts reported the highest proportion of their population being absent (staying abroad).

Percent of households receiving remittance has increased from 23 percent in 1995/96 to about 56 percent in 2010/11

Food: In NLSS-III, around 8 percent of households reported that they could not afford to eat what they normally eat at one or more times during the past 30 days from the day of enumeration. Most of the households that experienced food shortages tried to overcome the situation by resorting to “borrowing the food or money to buy food”.

Nutrition Status of Children

The proportions of children (less than 5 years of age) who are underweight, stunted and wasted are 31, 42 and 14 percent respectively. The corresponding proportions for severe underweight, stunting and wasting among children are 8, 15 and 3 percent respectively.

Land tenure

About 95 percent of the agricultural households own land and 10 percent rent out some or all of their land to others. On the other hand, 32 percent of households operate at least some land rented-in from others. At the other extreme, 5 percent households do not own any land but operate land owned by others on contractual basis.

*Agriculture Equipment *

A large majority of farmers still use locally made agricultural tools. Mechanization of agriculture is at a very low stage. About 52 percent of farmers own the most basic equipment – a plough or improved type of plough (bikase halo). About 33 percent of farmers use bins and containers for grain storage. Only one percent of farmers own tractor or power tiller.

Food

Overall, 16 percent of the respondents think that food consumption in their households is “less than adequate” (or inadequate), while 82 percent say it is “just adequate” and the remaining 2 percent answer “more than adequate”. The percentage of households reporting “inadequacy” of food consumption is higher in rural areas than in urban areas. The proportion of respondents reporting “inadequacy” is the highest in the far-western region (25 percent) and the lowest in the central region. Among analytic domains, this proportion is the highest in the mountains and the lowest in the Kathmandu valley urban areas,

Clothing

At the national level, 17 percent of households report to have “inadequate” clothing for their family members while 82 percent report it as “just adequate”. About a third and a fourth of the households in the mid west and the far west development regions respectively report to have less than adequate clothing for their family.

Among the domains, the highest incidence of reported clothing inadequacy is in the mountains (33 percent) followed by the rural mid and far western hills (31 percent) while the lowest incidence is in the Kathmandu valley urban areas (6 percent) followed by the urban Tarai (9 percent). The poorest quintile has the highest proportion of households reporting clothing inadequacy (35 percent) while the top quintile has only 4 percent of households reporting this “inadequacy”.

Health Care

Overall, 18 percent of households perceive their health care to be “less than adequate”. The percentage of households reporting health care as “just adequate” is 79 percent.

Schooling

In Nepal, 16 percent of households in the country think that schooling for their children is less than adequate, 70 percent think to be just adequate, and for 13 percent it is “not applicable” (i.e., they don’t have school-age children). The proportion of households reporting less than adequate schooling is roughly one fourth in each of the following regions: the mountains zone, mid and far west development regions, the rural mid and far west hills, and the rural mid and far west Tarai. A similar proportion of households in the poorest household consumption quintile think that schooling for their children is inadequate .

Income

About 49 percent of the households in the country perceive their total income as less than adequate and 50 percent think it to be just adequate. The percentage of households reporting their income as “more than adequate” is around one percent only

Food Security

In NLSS III, households are asked whether they had experienced any food shortages or shortage of money to buy adequate food for the family in the last 30 days preceding the day of enumeration. They are also asked what coping strategy they had to resort to in case of such shortages. Overall, about 8 percent households in the country report shortage of foods or money to buy foods in the last 30 days; this proportion is double for rural areas than for urban areas. Among the households who experience food shortage, the highest proportion (about 43 percent) faces the shortage for 3 to 5 days and about one-fourth of them face 1 to 2 days of such scarcity. There seems no significant difference between urban and rural areas regarding the proportion of households reporting food shortages for 5 days or less

Stunting Among Children

This is the proportion of children under five that fall below minus two and below minus three standard deviations from median height-for-age of WHO reference population.

Forty-two percent of children under five are stunted and 15 percent are severely stunted. Stunting is slightly higher among females than among males.

Underweight Children

This is the proportion of children under five that fall below minus two and below minus three standard deviations from median weight-for-age of WHO reference population25.

Thirty-one percent of children (less than five years of age) are underweight and 8 percent are severely underweight. Both the rates for females are higher than those for males.

Wasted

Fourteen percent of children are wasted and 3 percent are severely wasted. The wasting rates for females are slightly bigger than those for males.