TyroCity: Sociology BA LLB

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.

Wild Peter

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

The first really famous feral child was Wild Peter, “a naked, brownish, black-haired creature” captured near Helpensen in Hanover in 1724, when he was about 12. He climbed trees with ease, lived off plants and seemed incapable of speech. He refused bread, preferring to strip the bark from green twigs and suck on the sap; but he eventually learnt to eat fruit and vegetables. He was presented at court in Hanover to George I, and taken to England, where he was studied by leading men of letters. He spent 68 years in society, but never learnt to say anything except “Peter” and “King George”, although his hearing and sense of smell were said to be “particularly acute”.

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.

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.

Oxana Malaya

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

In 1991, Oxana Malaya, who lives in Ukraine, was found and considered to be a feral child. At the time she was found, she was only 8 years old and is said to have lived amongst dogs since she was 3 years old. She was kept in a kennel in the backyard of her home. Because of this she picked up common behaviors that dogs exhibit: barking, growling, and even protecting the pack, so to speak. She even walked on four legs as a dog does and sniffed out her food before she ate it. When authorities came to rescue Oxana, the other dogs growled and attempted to attack them while Oxana barked and growled as well. Because of her lack of human interaction, Oxana had no vocabulary except the words “yes” and “no.”

She was of course put through intensive therapy to attempt to help her to learn necessary social and verbal skills. She was able to learn how to speak, though therapists say she has deep issues with attempting to communicate and express herself emotionally. Today she lives at the Baraboy Clinic in Odessa and spends a lot of her time tending to the cows at the hospital’s farm, though she has expressed that she really feels best when she is around dogs.

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.

Detail Theories of Thomas Hobes

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

Believed that life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
His most famous work is Leviathan.
Believed that humans are inherently bad because everyone is self-interested.
Hobbs felt it was best to submit to the will of a Sovereign without question.
Man entered into government for Safety.
The main role of government is to protect its citizens.
Rights and liberty always come after safety and protection.
Never overthrow the government because doing so creates anarchy and then there is no safety.

Hinduism

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

Arjun Guneratne – 2002 wrote in her book Many Tongues, One People: The Making of Tharu Identity in Nepal:

‘The terms sanskritization, Hinduization, and Nepalization, when used in the Nepali context, are virtually interchangeable. They all describe much the same process, predicated on the adoption of the symbols of Hinduism, although Nepalization includes as well the use of a common language as the basis of integration. The concepts of sanskritization and Hinduization describe the process by which low-caste or tribal groups raise their status within, or become absorbed into, the social system of a dominant Hindu polity. When used in the Nepali context they all refer to the fact that the fostering of a common national identity based on Hindu symbols has been a preoccupation of the country’s elites since the political unification of Nepal in the eighteenth century. ’

Features of Hindization

Non Hindu (Buddhist and other non Hindus) leaving their traditional cultural practices and adopting the Hindu cultural practices.

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

Nepalization

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

‘Nepalization refers to the process by which members of other ethnic communities in Nepal adopt the language , religion and other cultural practices of the country’s dominant Brahman-Chetri ethnic groups. These practices are the cultural template for a Nepali national identity.’- Arjun Guneratne – 2002 wrote in her book Many Tongues, One People: The Making of Tharu Identity in Nepal:

Features of Nepaization

Change in mother tongue:
People leaving abandoning their mother tongue and accepting Nepali language.Change in religion
People who are not Hindus declaring themselves as Hindus.

Change within Hinduism
Hindu Madheshi and Hindu Newars following Hinduism that are practiced by Parbatiya Brahmins and Chettris.

Use of language in government offices.

Only Nepali mother used in government offices (pre 2006 People’s Movement)

Rest is similar to Sanskritization

History of Nepalization 1774 Nepali state had granted autonomy to Limbu elites in a 1774. Kipat system so that they would join the Nepali or erstwhile Gorkha state.

Nepalization during the into Gorkha was done in the four following manners during the pre Rana period:

Cultural assimilation and reward as in case of Gurung and Magars who were told they were Hindus and Gorkhas.

They received large share of land ownership.

Gurungs were given lordship over large areas of Rai and Limbu land for their help to Prithivi Narayan Shah.

Their caste system increased along with other Khas groups.
Accommodation through Concession : Kirat area came under Gorkhas when the Gorkhas promished the Kirats that Kirats will be allowed to hold land according to Kipat sustem.

Kirats (Rai and Limbus) who had Kipat land were not required to pay land tax to Gorkha empire.

Raikar land in rest of Nepal except in Kirat area had to pay tax to Gorkhas.

Labour exploitation: Tamang community were exploited as labourers for military and mercantile purposes. This also took place in Kumaon and Garhwal.

Vengeance and fear: Newars (mass mutilation in Kirtipur) and other Khas kingdoms and feudal warlords especially in Karnali basin had to face ruthless vengeance of Gorkhali. Torture in Karnali is still called Gorkhali Lathi.

Another historical process of Hinduization and Nepalization began with the recruitment of non Hindu Janajatis into Gorkha army:

GORKHA ARMY AND NEPALIZATION

Khas-Bahun commander and powerful Janajati sub commanders composed of Gorkha army.
In many cases Magars and Gurungs were powerful commanders of Gorkha army

Gorkha army did not have a one culture group character as if it was the only Khas army.It had multi ethnic military character
To make sure that Magars were part of Gorkha empire’s campaign to unify Nepal the Gorkha king Prithivi Narayan Shah had claimed ‘I am king of Magars’

Harka Gurung claimed that Gorkha army and British Gorkha army Hinduized and Parbatiyaized the Janajati soldiers.

According to Harka Gurung out of 10 Gorkha regiment in British army in India only 1 was reserved for Thakuri and Chetri combined.

These majority Janajati armies were Hinduized

They were Instructed in Nepali language

They were taught Nepali script

Since they earned more and had more respect in their village than than non army Janajatis hence when they returned to their village they were able to further Hinduize and Nepalize other Janajatis
Between 1914-18 some 100,000 Gorkhas support British in World War I. Most of these were from Janajati community who were Nepalized, Sanskritized and Hinduized by the British.

Panchayat period and Nepalization

The Panchayt system failed to unite the Parbatiya and non-Parbatiya, Hindus and non-Hindus, so-called-high-caste and Dalits. Panchayat ideologues were working towards the fusion of modernism and Hinduism for an alternative non-Indian Hinduisms and non-western modernism. The arrival of Panchayat as the dictatorial system in 1960 was a desperate attempt to forcefully impose a new version of the Nepali Nationalist Ideology based on Hinduism, Nepali language and Parbatiya culture. This has been called as Nepalization in sociology and anthropology in Nepal although many scholars have challenged this term.

Nepali nationalism during the Panchayat era was based on the following 4 core issues:

Extreme loyalty to the king.
Fluent Nepali language
Hill Hindu religion
Parbatiya culture (dress and arts)
Education materials to support the above four pillars

George Homans: Social Exchange Theory

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

What is Exchange Theory ?

Basic premise: people will continue to engage in behaviors they find rewarding and cease to engage in behaviors where the costs have proven to be too high in the past.
Self-interest was the universal motive that made the world go around.
A reaction against Parsons, Durkheim, and structural functionalism in general.
Sociology should concern itself with explaining individual behavior and interaction and have little interest in consciousness or large-scale structures and institutions.
Focusing on what people get and what they contribute in turn to the relationship.
Homans believed that in very interaction something is being exchanged. Not only in the economic realm but also come in the form of approval, esteem, love, affection, allegiance, and other nonmaterialistic or symbolic expressions.
In industrial observations, for example.
If workers feel that they are paid unfairly they may form a union, bargain collectively with the employer or strike. But at the same time, they will weigh the potential benefits against the cost. When multiple value are involved, the rational calculation of benefits and costs becomes very difficult.
In short, Homans’ exchange theory “investigaes social behaviors as an exchange or activity, tangible, or intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two persons”
He concluded five clear-cut propositions that he felt explains all human behavior. These propositions are the cornerstone of his exchange theory.

Effects of the social contract

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

Hobbes: People will live in peace but without rights except for the right to self-defense
Locke: The three natural rights which exist in the State of Nature will be easier to enforce by the government. Those who have given express consent will be bound by the contract; those who have given tacit consent can opt out and leave.
Rousseau: Life will be fair for all if we employ the general will and set aside our personal interests.
Kant: The people will be fairly represented by the Sovereign without actually having to participate.
Rawls: We will have decided on a system that is fair for everyone, using the “Veil of Ignorance.”