TyroCity: Sociology Notes

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.

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)

Modernization

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

‘…modernization involves change in the basic values of society. In particular it means the gradual acceptance by groups within the society of universalistic and achievement-based norms, the emergence of loyalties and identifications of individuals and groups with the nation-state, and the spread of the assumption that citizens have equal rights against the state and equal obligations to the state.’

-Samuel P. Huntington

Features of modernization

Dominance of Rational culture
Use of science and reasoning in lifestyle work and education
From traditional to democratic nation state
Highest loyalty to the nation state than to religion, tribe, ethnic group or political organization.
Goal achievement based culture
State laws are more powerful and dominant than religious and tribal laws.
Use of meritocracy in recruitment (education or employment).
From family based management of organization to professional based management.
Use of science and technology in economic, political and cultural sectors of society:

Economic sector: Use of technology in agriculture.
Politics: Use of electronic voting system during elections or use of mass media for election campaign
Cultural sector: The use of internet to study Vedas, Quran or Torah or Bible etc.

Dominance of this life and this world attitude.

Modernization in Nepal

Modernization of the state
- From absolute monarchy to military dictatorship
- Military dictatorship to Panchayat dictatorship
- Panchayat dictatorship to democratic state
Modernization of education
- Religious and tribal education to formal education
- From propaganda based state led Panchyat education to facts based education
- From facts based to more reasoning and critical thinking based education.
Modernization of culture
- From belief in caste system to the belief in the equality of everyone
- From belief in male superiority to the belief that men and women are equal.
- Mono-cultural tendency to multicultural
Modernization of economy
- From agricultural to trade, service and industry based economy
- From use of traditional equipment to the use of modern technologies.
Modernization of infrastructure
- Traditional roads to roads that are planned by engineers and sociologists.
- Traditional transportation system (horse, elephants) to modern motors, planes etc.
- Traditional source of light to electricity and solar based electricity.
Modernization of Law
- Law based on religion to law based on human rights and democratic principals.
Modernization of health
- From use of shamans to the use of doctors
- Hospital services in village level

Genie

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

If you ever take a Psychology class or get into a conversation about feral children, Genie’s name will probably come up. For 13 years she was locked inside a room and strapped to her potty chair, other times she was bound in a sleeping bag and put inside a crib. Her father, the one behind the abuse, would hit her with a stick if she ever spoke and he would bark and growl at her to keep her quiet. He also forbade his other children and even his wife from speaking. Because of this, Genie had a very small vocabulary, consisting of about 20 words. The phrases she did know included “stop it” and “no more.” She was discovered in 1970 and today she is considered to be one of the worst cases of social isolation known. She was often thought to be autistic until doctors found out she was really 13 and was a victim of abuse.

She was taken to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles where she was treated for years. After some treatment, she was able to answer questions in one-word answers and she learned how to dress herself. However, she still held onto her learned behavior, including a “bunny walk” where she held her hands up in front of her as if they were paws. She also scratched and even clawed at things. Though she was moved around a lot, she found home with her therapist David Rigler for 4 years, who worked with her daily. He and his family taught Genie sign language as well as ways to express herself without speaking; drawing was a method. Genie then went to live with her mother, and then abusive foster parents, which then caused her to become mute again and afraid to speak. Today she is living somewhere in Southern California.

Nature of Sociology

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

Sociology, as a branch of knowledge, has its own unique characteristics. It is different from other science in certain respects. An analysis of its internal logical characteristics helps one to understand what kind of science it is. The following are the main characteristics of sociology as enlisted by Robert Bierstedt in his book, " The social order". An always of its internal logical characteristics helps one to understand what kind of science it is.

Sociology is an Independent Science.
Sociology is a Social Science and not a physical Science.
Sociology is a categorical and not a Normative Discipline.
Sociology is relatively and Abstract Science and not a concrete Science.
Sociology is pure science and not an Applied Science.
Sociology is a General Science not a special Science.
Sociology is a Generalizing and not a particularizing or Individualizing science.
Sociology is Both a Rational and Empirical Science.

Sociology is an independent science:

Sociology has now emerged into an independent science. It is not treated and studied as a branch of any other science like philosophy or political philosophy or history. As an independent science it has its own field of study, boundary and method.

Sociology is a social science and not a physical science.

Sociology belongs to the family of social sciences and not to the family of physical sciences. As a social science, it concentrates its attention on man, his social behaviour, social activities and social life. As a member of the family of social science it is intimately related to other social sciences like history, political sciences, economics, psychology, anthropology etc. The fact that sociology deals with the social universe distinguishes it from astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics and other physical sciences.

Sociology is a categorical and not a normative discipline:

Sociology 'confines itself to statements about what is, not what should be or ought to be'. As a science, sociology is necessarily silent about questions of value. It does not make any kind of value-judgements. Its approach is neither moral nor immoral but amoral. It is ethically neutral. It cannot decide the directions in which sociology ought to go. It makes no recommendations on matters of social policy or legislation or programme. But it does not mean that sociological knowledge is useless and serves no purpose. It only means that sociology as a discipline cannot deal with problems of good and evil, right and wrong, and moral or immoral.

Sociology is a Pure Science and not an Applied Science:

A distinction is often made between Pure Sciences and applied sciences. The main aim of pure sciences is the acquisition of knowledge and it is not bothered whether the acquired knowledge is useful or can be put to use. On the other hand, the aim of applied science is to apply the acquired knowledge into life and to put to use. Each pure science may have its own applied field. For example, Physics is a pure science and engineering is its applied fields. Similarly the pure sciences such as economics, political science, history, etc., have their applied fields like business, politics, and journalism respectively. Sociology as a pure science has its applied fields such as administration, diplomacy, social work etc. Each pure science may have more than one application.

Sociology is a pure science, because the immediate aim of sociology is the acquisition of knowledge about human society, not the utilization of knowledge. Sociologists never determine questions of public policy and do not recommend legislators what laws should be passed or repealed. But the knowledge acquired by a sociologist is of great help to the administrator, the legislator, the diplomat, the teacher, the foreman, the supervisor, the social worker and the citizen. But sociologists themselves do not apply the knowledge to life and use, as a matter of their duty and profession.

Sociology is relatively an abstract science and not a concrete science:

This does not mean sociology is an art and not a science. Nor does it mean, it is unnecessarily complicated and unduly difficult. It only means that sociology is not interested in concrete manifestations of human events. It is more concerned with the form of human events and their patterns. For example, sociology is not concerned with particular wars and evolutions but with war and revolutions in general, as social phenomena, as types of social conflict. Similarly, sociology does confine itself to the study of this society or that particular society or social organization, or marriage, or religion, or group and so on. It is in this simple sense that sociology is an abstract not a concrete science.

Sociology is a Generalizing and not a particularizing or Individualizing science:

Sociology tried to find out the general laws or principles about human interaction and association, about the nature, form, content and structure of human groups and societies. It does not study each and every event that takes place in a society. It is not possible also. It tries to make generalizations on the basis of the study of some selected events. For example, a sociologist makes generalizations about the nature of secondary groups. He may conclude that secondary groups are comparatively bigger in size, less stable, not necessarily spatially limited, more specialized, and so on. This, he does, not by examining all the secondary groups but by observing and studying a few.

Sociology is a General Science and not a special social science:

The area of inquiry of sociology is general and not specialized. It is concerned with human interaction and human life in general. Other social sciences like political science, history, economics, etc., also study man and human interaction, but not all about human interaction. They concentrate their attention on certain aspects of human interaction and activities and specialize themselves in those fields. Accordingly, economics specializes itself in the study of economic activities, political science concentrates on political activities and so on. Sociology, of course, does not investigate economic, religious, political, legal, moral or any other special kind of phenomenon in relation to human life and activities as such. It only studies human activities in a general way. This does not, however, mean that sociology is the basic science nor does it imply sociology is the general social science. Anthropology and social psychology often claim themselves to be general social sciences.

Finally, Sociology is both a Rational and an Empirical Science.

There are two broad ways of approach to scientific knowledge. One, known as empiricism, is, the approach that emphasizes experience and the facts that result from observation and experimentation. The other, known as rationalism, stresses reason and the theories that result from logical inference.

The empiricist collects facts; the rationalist co-ordinates and arranges them. Theories and facts are required in the construction of knowledge. In sociological inquiry both are significant. A theory unsubstantiated by hard, solid facts is nothing more than an opinion. Facts, by themselves, in their isolated character, are meaningless and useless. As Immanuel Kant said, " Theories without facts are empty and facts without theories are blind". All modern sciences, therefore, avail themselves of both empirical and rational resources. Sociology is not an exception.

it is clear from the above that sociology is an independent, a social, a categorical, a pure, an abstract, a generalizing, both a rational and an empirical and a general social science.

Scope of Sociology

What is the Scope of Sociology? What is the Subject matter that is Studies? There are two main Schools of thought among the Sociologist on this issue.

Specialist or Formalistic and 2) Synthetic

The Specialist or Formalistic School

This school of thought is led by the German sociologist George Simmel. The other main advocates of this school are Vierkandt, Max Weber, Von Wiese and Tonnies.

Simmel and others are of the opinion that sociology is pure and independent science. As a pure science it has a limited scope. Sociology should confine itself to the study of certain aspects of human relationship only. Further, it should study only the forms of social relationships but not their human relationship only. But not their contents. Social relationship such as competition, sub-ordination, division of labor etc, are expressed in different fields of social life such as economic, political, religious, moral, artistic, etc. Sociology should disentangle the from of social relationship and study them in abstraction, Sociology as specific social science describers, classifies and analyses the form of social relationships.

Vierkandt says that sociology concern itself with the ultimate form of mental or psychic relationship which links men to one another in society. He maintains that in dealing with culture, sociology should not concern itself with the actual contents of cultural evolution but it should confine itself to only the discovery of the fundamental forces of change and persistence. It should refrain itself form making an historical study of concrete societies.

Max Weber opines that the aim of sociology is to interpret or understand social behavior. But social behavior does not cover the whole field of human relations; He further says that sociology should make an analysis and classification of types of social relationships.

Small insisted that sociology has only a limited field. Von Wiese and Tonnies expressed more or less the same opinion.

Criticism

The views of the Formalistic school are widely criticized.

The formalistic school has unreasonably narrowed the fields of sociology. Sociology should study not only the general forms of social relationships but also their concrete contents.
The distinction between the forms of social relations and their contents is not workable. Social forms can not be abstracted form the content al all, since social forms keep on changing when the contents change.
Sociology is not the only science that studies the forms of social relationships. Other sciences also do that. The study of international law, for example, includes social relations like conflict, war, opposition, contract etc. Political science, Economics also study social relationships.

Synthetic School

The synthetic school of though conceives of sociology as a synthesis of the social sciences. It wants to make sociology a general social science and not a pure or special science.

The main argument of this school is that all parts of social life are intimately inter-related.

The views of Emile Durkheim: one of the stalwarts of this school of thought, sys that sociology has three main divisions or fields inquiry.

Social Morphology: social morphology studies the territorial basis of the life of people and also the problems of population such as volume and density, local distribution etc
Social physiology: social physiology has different branches such as sociology of religion, of morals, of law, of economic life and of language etc.
General Sociology: general sociology can be regarded as the philosophical part of sociology. It deals with the general character of the social facts. its function is the formulation of general social laws.

Morris Ginsberg

Ginsberg, another advocate of the synthetic school, says that the main task of sociology can be categorized into four branches:

Social Morphology: Social Morphology deals with the quantity and quality of population. It studies the social structure, social groups and institutions.
Social Control: Social Control studies-formal as well as informal-means of social control such as custom, tradition, morals, religion, convention and also law court legislation, etc. It deals with the regulating agencies of society
Social Process: Social Process tries to make a study of different modes of interaction such as cooperation, competition, conflict, accommodation, assimilation, isolation, integration, differentiation, development, arrest and decay.
Social Pathology: Social Pathology studies social mal-adjustment and disturbances. It also includes studies on various social problems like poverty, beggary, unemployment, over-population, prostitution, crime etc.

Victor of Aveyron

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

Victor ‘the Wild Boy of Aveyron’ is another name on the list that you may sound familiar. Some say that he could be the first documented cause of autism, but he is definitely a well known case of a child that was left alone in the wild. At the end of the 18th century, several people saw Victor wandering in the Saint Sernin sur Rance woods, which is located in southern France. Victor was captured a first time and somehow escaped. It wasn’t until January 8, 1800 that he was caught again after coming out of the woods on his own, though he was spotted several times in 1798 and 1799. At this time he was said to be about 12 years old. His body was covered in scars and he was unable to speak a word. He was taken back to town where he was generally accepted, though once the news spread, many came forward wanting to examine him.

A biology professor, Pierre Joseph Bonnaterre, decided to examine Victor, taking off his clothes and putting him outside in the snow. Victor began to run around in the snow, showing no ill-effects of the cold temperature on his bare skin. It is said that he lived in the wild for about 7 years, so it is no surprise that his body was able to take such extreme weather. Roch-Ambroise Cucurron Sicard then took over and decided to try to teach the boy, though he soon became frustrated at his lack of progress. Though he was probably born with the ability to talk and hear, he never did so properly after being left in the wild. He was eventually taken to the Paris Institution des Sourds-Muets where he lived with Mme Guérin and died at the age of 40.

Meaning, characteristics and origin of stratification

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

ANTHONIO GIDDENS: ‘The existence of structured inequalities between groups in society in terms of their access to material or symbolic rewards. While all societies involve some forms of stratification, only with the development of state based systems do wide differences in wealth and power arise. The most distinctive form of stratification in modern societies involves class divisions’.

‘The term stratification in sociology is usually applied to studies of structured social inequality that is studies of any systematic inequalities between groups of people which arise as the unintended consequence of social processes and relationships. When we ask why there is poverty why Black people or women in United States are disadvantaged vis-à-vis (respectively) Whites and men or what chances someone born into the working class has of achieving a middle class position we are posing questions about social stratification. ’ Oxford Dictionary of Sociology

Meaning of social stratification

Social stratification refers to existing social inequality in a society
This inequality is caused by the way wealth, power, and prestige are distributed
Social stratification exists in all societies

Types of social stratification

1. Open stratification system:

The type of stratification system in which merit and not inheritance (ascribed characteristics) determines social rank of a person.
For example Mrs A is the manager of a company and not Mr B because Mrs A is good in management (achieved status) and not because of her caste or gender.
In this type of stratification achieved status is given importance.

2. Closed stratification system

Stratification system in which inheritance (ascribed status) and not merit determines social rank
A wife is considered as inferior to her husband because of the ascribed status.

Characteristics of social stratification

1. Power: Capacity to impose your will on others, regardless of any resistance
2. Material wellbeing: Involves access to economic resources required to pay for necessities of life and other possessions and advantages
3. Prestige: Average evaluation of occupational activities and positions arranged in a hierarchy

Social Control

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

What Is Social Control?

Any action, deliberate or unconscious, that influences conduct toward conformity, whether or not the persons being influenced are aware of the process.
The primary function of law is to establish and maintain social control.
Why is social control necessary?
- Peaceful coexistence
- Predictable coexistence

Meaning of Social Control

The Social Control Theory instead of asking what drives people to commit crime or rebel (as in case of Marxist and feminists), they ask why do most people not commit crime( or do not rebel against the injustice in society as in case of Marxists).
All human beings suffer from innate human weaknesses which make them unable to resist temptation to commit crime and rebel but they don’t. This theory or different theories tries to answer the why part.
The theory is focused on analyzing the restraining or “controlling” factors that are broken or missing inside the personalities of criminals (as in case of normal social control theories) or inside rebels (as in case of Marxists and other left oriented theories).
Control theory investigate the ways in which our behavior is regulated, including the influences of family, school, morals, values, beliefs, etc.
It is this regulation that is seen as leading to conformity and compliance with the rules of society

Emile Durkheim, 1858-1917

Emile Durkheim studied societies during the peak of the industrial revolution in the late 19th century. It was a type of society in which the social solidarity or what he called mechanical solidarity or a sense of bond and attachment people had with each other had collapsed. Due to this the individuals were alone and culturally lost.

Nature of social control
Durkheim was very clear in his argument that social control was stronger in rural areas and in non industrialized societies. In rural society people had strong attachment with the group and as a result they did not feel alone and lost. In urban setting people had organic solidarity which was the weakening of the “collective force of society”. Due to this there was weakening of social bonds. This led to extreme individualism and caused suicide (anomie led suicide). Anomie is a social condition of normlessness under which individuals feel less or almost no pressure to conform to social norms. This leads to deviance.

Purpose of social control
Durkheim argued that the modern individual in industrialized urban societies were insufficiently integrated into society because of the weakening bonds, collapse of social and the controlling influence of society on the animal desires and interests of the individuals. The purpose of social control is to control these wild instructs of people and integrate them into society. If these wild instincts are not controlled then individuals lose interest in society and as a result die of anomie (meaning and purposelessness)

Mechanism of social control
Durkheim argued that religion and education are some of the major mechanisms of social control. Religious ceremonies he argued brought people together and gave them a sense of solidarity. Durkheim believed that education served as an instrument to reinforce social solidarity. School is a society in miniature: it has a similar hierarchy, rules, expectations to the “outside world,” and trains people to fulfill roles. Durkheim was clear that anomie is a social construct not an individual attribute (anomia).Social control comprises all mechanisms at preventing anomie

Max Weber’s authority as social control

Nature of social control
Traditional society is controlled by traditional values and sometimes by values of new charismatic leaders. But social control in traditional society is by traditional authority. In modern system however the social control is done through rational authority. That means a highly rational and calculative system controls modern society.

Purpose of social control
The purpose of social control in society is goal attainment through efficient system . The goal attainment could be profit or power.

Mechanism of social control
In traditional society, the mechanism was traditional organizations like family, religion.

In modern society, the mechanism is bureaucracy based on meritocracy and rationality.

Karl Marx

Nature of social control
Those who control the economy are the exploiters. They need to create superstructure (law and ideology) to secure the economic system.

Purpose of social control
The purpose of social control is to prevent the exploited class from revolting against the system so as to run the system in a smooth manner.

Mechanism of social control
Marx argued that all ideology manufacturing institutes like religion, law, and education were controlled by the economic elites hence the ideology and education they manufactured were aimed at producing people who could not revolt against the system.

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman

In the book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The two authors talk about media as social control.

Nature of social control

The model suggests the existence of a set of news “filters”, which dilute the raw news content into a content that suits the dominant corporate and governmental interests. Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model” describes five editorially distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:

FILTER 1: Corporate ownership:Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners – often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience. The media is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of private companies, owned by wealthy individuals.
FILTER 2: Financial reliance on advertising: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising(not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de-facto licensing authority”. Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the interest of the working class.
FILTER 3: Reliance on PR for information: Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring […] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”
Flak and the Enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.
Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the “War on Terror”, as the major social control mechanism.

Purpose of social control
The purpose of social control is to prevent people from having access to the truth so that they will accept society as it is.

Mechanism of social control
Social control is through media which is controlled by economic elites.

Ivan Nye

Nature of social control
Ivan Nye argued that there are three types of social control in society:

Direct control, by which punishment is imposed for misconduct and compliance is rewarded. For example a thief is sent to jail or a coldblooded murder is given death sentence.
Indirect control, by which a individuals refrains from delinquency because such acts might cause pain/disappointment to their loved ones or significant others
Internal control, by which a individuals are taught that to violate social norms is bad. They feel guilty when they are engaged in delinquent acts

Purpose of social control
The main purpose of social control is to prevent youths from performing deviant or delinquent behavior.

Mechanism of social control
Family is the most important agent of social control according to him. The more young individuals need for affection, security, and recognition through the family, the less they will deviate from social norms.

Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory

Nature of social control
Travis Hirschi’s social bonding theory may be the most popular criminological theory in criminology. It was first presented in 1969. Hirschi questioned why people do not commit the crime. Hirschi theorized that crime is more common among individuals who had a weak relationship with social institutions such as family and religion.

Purpose of social control
For Hirschi, the purpose of social control was to control delinquency and crime.

Mechanism of social control
Travis Hirschi assumes that all people have the capacity to be delinquent. Preventing most people from engaging in law-breaking is a “bonding” to society. Hirschi identifies 4 elements to the social bond which can prevent crime:

1. Attachment:

Attachment to parents, teachers, peers (attachment to parents is the most important).
Attachment deters criminal activities

2. Commitment:

The more an individual is attached with parents or loved ones the more he or she is committed to social goals.
The more an individual is attached to social goal the more likely that a person will not commit crime as the crime could disturb her from achieving the social goal

3. Involvement:

A person who wants to achieve a social goal will be busy in the activities that help him to achieve his social goal.
People who are involved with social goal-oriented activities will not be able to find time to commit a crime

4. Belief:

People who believe that laws and social values are good for them and for society will respect the law and will not break it.

Basically, Hirschi is arguing that if a person is bonded to society, they are not as likely to break the law.

they have too much to lose
they have little time to break the law
they are too sensitive to the feelings of others to victimize them

David Matza and Gresham Skyes' neutralization theory

Nature of social control
Matza and Skyes argue that criminals do not enjoy or feel good when they are committing crime. They actually feel guilty when committing crime. They, however, have developed a psychological technique called neutralization to justify their criminal activities.

Purpose of social control
The purpose of social control for Matza and Skyes is to control delinquency or crimal behavior.

Mechanism of social control
Criminals according to Matza and Skyes used neutralization as an instrument to justify their crime. These neutralization techniques are as follows:

1. Denial of Responsibility – behavior is due to forces beyond their control

For example, an exploiter in a factory may claim ‘I have to exploit workers otherwise I will not be able to send my children to expensive private schools. I can’t help it’

2. Denial of Injury – no one was hurt

Paying less money to the workers is okay because they can still send their children to schools that are less expensive. Less expensive schools also have good teachers so my exploitation of workers is okay and not that injurious to them.

3. Denial of the Victim – they deserved it

I have to exploit workers. If today I raise their wages or salaries then tomorrow they might demand extra holiday. I have to exploit them.

4. Condemnation of the Condemner – they made me do it.

I had to beat my servant. He was not working properly. He made me hit him.

5. Appeal to Higher Loyalties – I had no choice. If I don’t beat my servants then they will not work. If they don’t work then my money is wasted. So I have to beat him.

Containment Theory of Walter Reckless

Nature of social control
This theory was developed in the 1950s by Walter Reckless. Reckless proposed that positive self-concepts imposed by society on an individual such as being a good daughter could protect individuals from committing crimes. These concepts were instilled by one’s immediate family and other social forces.

Containment Theory assumes that almost every individual can be prevented from committing crime by using outer and internal containment. Reckless suggests that the probability of deviance is directly related to the extent to which internal pushes and external pulls are controlled by one’s inner and outer containment. The primary containment factor is found in self-concept.

Purpose of social control
To prevent people from committing crime.

Mechanism of social control
Criminal behavior can be controlled by outer and internal containment

Internal social control lies within the individual and is developed during socialization. You are practising internal social control when you act according to your conscience (ie. you do something because it is the right thing to do).
- Most people act according to this internal social control (ie. they do the right thing) – most of the time.
- The process of socialization does not ensure that all people will conform all of the time. For this reason, external social control must also be present.
External social control is based on social sanctions – rewards and punishments designed to encourage desired behavior.
- Positive sanctions (eg. smile of approval, awards, raises) are used to encourage conformity.
- Negative sanctions (eg. criticism, fines, imprisonment) are intended to stop socially unacceptable behavior.

Albert J. Reiss

Nature of social control
Delinquency is a result of the failure of individuals to internalize socially accepted norms and behavior.

Purpose of social control
To prevent people from delinquent behavior.

Mechanism of social control
Social control can be activated by creating internal control by convincing people that breaking the law is wrong or by social rules which control people by telling them how they are punished for breaking these social rules (the family, the school, and other important social groups).

Introduction to Cases of growth of Self and Social Heritage

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

A feral child is a human child who has lived away from human contact from a very young age, and has little or no experience of human care, loving or social behavior, and, crucially, of human language. Feral children are confined by humans (often parents), brought up by animals, or live in the wild in isolation. There have been over one hundred reported cases of feral children, and this is a selection of ten of them.

Rochom Pn’gieng

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

On January 23, 2007, a Cambodian woman (‘the Cambodian Jungle Girl’) came out of a jungle located in the Ratanakiri province of Cambodi after spending more than 19 years living in the jungle. A family in a close by village announced that the Cambodian woman was their daughter and that her name was Rochom Pn’gieng, a girl who had gone missing in 1979. When she was found she was naked and terrified. She was discovered after food from a lunchbox went missing and a man went on a hunt to find out who had taken it. The man gathered friends and found the woman in the jungle, captured her, and called police.

Coincidentally, it turned out that the head policeman was her father- he recognized a prominent scar on her back. At 8 years old, Rochom Pn’gien and her sister got lost in the jungle while herding buffalo (the sister has never been found). After she was discovered many worked with her to try to get her to adjust back to a normal lifestyle. When found she could say the words: stomachache, mother, and father. Her psychologist noted that she seemed to be speaking other words, but that they were unrecognizable. When she was hungry or thirsty she would simply point to her mouth. She also crawled more often than walk and refused to wear clothing. Despite being captured and treated, she has often tried (and sometimes succeeded) to escape back to the jungle.

Scopes of Sociology

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

Every science has its own areas of study of fields of inquiry. It becomes difficult for any one to study a science systematically unless its boundaries are demarcated and scope determined precisely. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the part of sociologists with regard to scope of sociology. V.F. Calberton writes, ‘since sociology is so elastic a science, it is difficult to determine just where its boundaries begins and ends, where sociology becomes social psychology and where social psychology becomes, sociology, or where economic theory becomes sociological doctrine or biological theory becomes sociological theory something, which is impossible to decide”. It is maintained by some that Sociology studies everything and anything under the sun. This is rather too vague a view about the scope of Sociology.

The scope of sociology is very wide. It is a general science but it is also a special science. As a matter of fact, the subject matter of all social sciences is society. What distinguishes them from one another is their viewpoint. Thus economics studies society from an economic view point; political science studies it from political viewpoint while history is a study of society from a historical point of view. Sociology alone studies social relationships and society itself. MacIver correctly remarks; ‘what distinguishes each from each is the selective interest’. Green also remarks, ‘ the focus of attention upon relationships makes sociology a distinctive field, however closely allied to certain others it may be.

The scope of sociology is, indeed, very vast. It studies all the social aspects of society such as social processes, social control, social change, stratification, social system, social groups, social pathology etc. Actually, it is neither possible nor essential to delimit the scope of sociology, because, it would be, as Sprott puts it, : “A brave attempt to confine an enormous mass of slippery material into a relatively simple system of pigeonholes”. It is actually neither possible nor essential to delimit the scope of sociology.

However, there are two main schools of thought regarding the scope of sociology:

The specialistic / formalistic school and
The synthetic school

The specialistic School

The school of thought is led by the German sociologist George Simmel. The other main advocates of this school are Vierkandt, Max Weber, Small, Von Weise and Tonnies.

Simmel and other are of the opinion that sociology is a pure and an independent science. As a pure science it has a limited scope. Sociology should confine itself to the study of certain aspects of human relationship only. Further, it should study only the ‘forms’ of social relationship but not their contents. Social relationship such as competition, sub-ordination, division of labour etc., are expressed in different fields of social life such as economic, political, religious, moral, artistic etc. Sociology should disentangle the forms of social relationships and study them in abstraction. Sociology as a specific social science describes, classifies and analyses the forms of social relationships.

Vierkandt says that sociology concern itself with the ultimate form of mental or psychic relationship which line one man with other men. According to him, the actual historical societiees, for example, the French society of the eighteenth century, or the Chinese family are of interest to sociologists only as a illustration of particular types of relationships. He further maintains that similarly in dealing with culture, sociology should not concern itself with the actual contents of cultural evolution but is should confine itself to only the discovery of the fundamental forces of change and persistence. It should abstain from a historical study of concrete societies.

Max Weber opines that the aim of sociology is to interpret or understand social behaviour. But social behaviour does not cover the whole field of human relations. He further says that sociology should make an analysis and classification of types of social relationships. Indeed not all human inter-actions are social. For instance, a collision between two cyclists is in itself merely a natural phenomenon, but their efforts to avoid each other or the language they use after the event constitute true social behaviour. Sociology is thus, according to him, concerned with the analysis and classification of types of social relationships.

Von Weise says that the scope of sociology is the study of forms of social relationships. He has divided these social relationships into many kinds.

Tonnie also supported the view of formalistic school. He has differentiated between society and community on the basis of forms of relationships. He interpreted social processes quantitatively and gave a mathematical formula. He says:

P = A x S
Where, P = Social processes, A = Attitude, S = Situation and attitude is made up of;

A = NxE (N = Basic social nature & E = Previous experiences)

S = BxA (B=Geographical conditions & A = Attitude of the participants)

Thus, according to the formalistic school, sociology studies one specific aspect of social relationships, i.e. their forms in their abstract nature, and not in any concrete situation. A comparison is drawn between the forms of social relationships and a bottle. A bottle may be either of plastic or any other material. It may contain milk, water etc. But the contents of the bottle do not change the form of bottle. Similarly, the forms of social relationships do not change with the change in the content of social relationships. For example, the study of competition – a form of social relationship will not make any difference whether we study it in the political field or economic field. Sociology has been compared with Geometry. Just as Geometry studies about the forms of physical things triangular, rectangular, square or circular etc., similarly sociology studies about the forms of social relationships. The relation of sociology to other social sciences is similar to the relation of Geometry with other natural sciences. The formalistic school has limited the scope of sociology to the abstract study of the forms of social relationship.

Criticism of formalistic school

The views of the formalistic school are widely criticized. Some critics remarks may be cited here;

The formalistic school has unreasonably narrowed the field of sociology. Sociology should not only study the general forms of social relationships but also their concrete contents.

Secondly, the distinction between forms of social relationship and their contents is not workable. Social forms can not be abstracted from the content at all, since social forms keep on changing when the contents change. Sorokin writes, ‘We may fill a glass with wine, water or sugar without changing its form, but I cannot conceive of a social institution whose form would not change when its members change’.

Thirdly, sociology is not the only science that studies the forms of social relationships. Other social sciences also do that. The study of international law, for example, includes social relations like conflict, war, opposition, agreement, contract etc. Political science, Economics also study social relationships.

Finally, the establishment of pure sociology is impractical. No sociology has been able to develop a pure sociology so far. No science can be studied in complete isolation from the other sciences. In fact, today more emphasis is laid on inter-disciplinary approach.

The synthetic School

The synthetic school of thought conceives of sociology as a synthesis of the social sciences. It wants to make sociology as general social science and not a pure or special social science. In fact, this school has made sociology synoptic or encyclopedic in character. Durkheim, Hob House, Ginsberg and Sorokin have been the chief exponents of this school.

The main argument of this school is that all parts of social life are intimately inter-related. Hence the study of one aspect is not sufficient to understand the entire phenomenon. Hence sociology should study social life as a whole. This opinion has contributed to the creation of a general and systematic sociology.

The views of Emile Durkheim:

He is one of chief proponent of this school of thought. He says that sociology has three main divisions or fields of inquiry. They are as follows: Social Morphology, Social Physiology and General Sociology.

1. Social Morphology: Social morphology studies the territorial basis of the life of people and also the problem of population such as volume and density, local distribution etc.

2. Social Physiology: Social physiology has different branches such a sociology of religion, or morals, of law, of economic life and of language etc.

3. General Sociology: General sociology can be regarded as the philosophical part of sociology. It deals with the general character of the social facts. Its function is the formulation of general social laws.

The views of Morris Ginsberg:

He says the main task of sociology can be categorized into four branches: social morphology, social control, social processes and social pathology.

1. Social Morphology: ‘Social Morphology’ deals with the quantity and quality of population. It studies the social structure, social groups, and institutions.

2. Social control: ‘social control’ studies formal as well as informal – means of social control such as custom, tradition, morals, religion, convention, and also law, court, legislation etc. It deals with the regulating agencies of society.

3. Social processes: ‘Social process’ tries to make a study of different modes of interaction such as cooperation, competition, conflict, accommodation, assimilation, isolation, integration, differentiation, development, arrest and decay.

4. Social Pathology: ‘Social pathology’ studies social mal-adjustment and disturbances. It also include studies on various social problems like poverty, beggary, unemployment, over-population, prostitution, crime etc.

Sorokin’s View: He says that the subject matter of sociology includes:

The study of relationship between the different aspects of social phenomena;
The study of relationship between the social and non-social.
The study of general features of social phenomena

Karl Mahhheim’s view: He divides sociology into two main sections:

1. Systematic and general sociology: It describes one by one the main factors of living together as far as they may be found in every kind of society.

2. Historical sociology: It deals with the historical variety and actuality of the general forms of society. They are categorized into two sections: firstly comparative sociology and secondly social dynamics. Comparative sociology deals mainly with the historical variations of the same phenomenon and tries to find by comparison general features as separated from industrial features. Social dynamics deals with the interrelations between various social factors and institutions in a certain given society, or instance, in a primitive society.

Ginsberg has also summed up the chief functions of sociology as follows:

Sociology seeks to provide a classification of types and forms of social relationship.
It tries to determine the relation between different factors of social life. For example, the economic and political, the moral and the religious, the moral and legal, the intellectual and the social elements.
It tries to disentangle the fundamental conditions of social change and persistence and to discover sociological principal governing social life.

Recently, a Sociological Seminar was held in America which gave a general outline of scope of the sociology. Alex Inkeles has put it as follows: Social analysis, primary concepts of social life, basic social institutions, and processes.

J.B. McKee holds that social action, social structure, social processes and social institutions are included in the scope of sociology.

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