Sociology as a discipline is relativity new, and emerged in the late 18th and early 19th century as a result of a number of social forces; however which social forces led to the emergence of sociology has long been a point of discussion for many sociologists. In the course of this essay four social forces will be address to see which if any caused the emergence of sociology. The four social forces are, first The Industrial Revolution, second The French Revolution, and third The American Revolution and finally the philosophical changes linked with the Enlightenment Thinkers. All of the forces listed above will be looked at, and the essay argues that a combination of the four led to the emergence of sociology.
First we look at the Industrial revolution and the effects it had on society, the advances in science and technology meant that it was now possible for society to change from a rural, agricultural way of living to an urban, industrial way of life. Where as before people had been largely employed in agriculture they were now moving into large urban factories. These developments in production and transport now meant that production was moving from the land to the towns and cities, humans were also moving into the cities which meant new societies were developing. These new societies had more problems than anyone first thought poverty and health were major problems along with land, people were forced to live in back-to-back houses, these had no gardens to the rear and so drying of clothes was done in the street at the front of the house, health in these conditions was poor as the drainage to them was low and so sanitary conditions were very poor. While this was happening the ruling classes of society were living in much nicer condition sometime just outside of town with plenty of land around their house for their children to play and for the wives to dry the clothes. Another large problem which some came to light was food adulteration, as large amounts of food were now needed in the town and there was no way of keeping it fresh for long periods of time again causing massive health problems. Under these conditions and partly because of them society was changing rapidly, new technologies had to be invented to help keep food fresh and ways to keep the cities clean had to be thought of so as to improve health within the inner city areas. Read more…
Society consists of many different sociological groups. These groups involve people of various races, religions, sexual preferences, etc. But what happens when these groups or even individuals develop an extreme anger or frustration towards each other? The answer to that question, unfortunately, is hatred.
Hate groups are being formed everyday and continue to be a huge problem in our society. These groups are formed mostly during times of economic struggle or even social change. One troupe will strongly believe that the reason for a social, economic, or even personal problem is solely the fault of another racial, religious, or other group. Groups are not the only problem in this society. Individuals also develop hatred and may commit heinous deviant acts towards one another, or even sometimes towards another group.
The most common forms of crime in our society are due to hatred. A study conducted in 1996 researched forty-nine states and the District of Columbia and reported that 8,759 crimes were actually recorded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All of these 8,759 dealt with bias-motivated criminal offenses. The appropriate name of these deviant acts is called hate crimes. Hate crimes are defined as a crime motivated by hatred, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, disability, and/or sexual orientation.
Read more…
The aim of this essay is to compare and contrast the social theories of science as proposed by Merton, Barnes and Feyerabend; and to determine if these theories support the suggestion that science is part of Weber’s rationalisation process. In order to achieve this aim, Weber’s account of formal rationalisation will be summarised. Additionally, Weber’s paradigm case, the structure of modern bureaucracies, will be used as an illustration of this process. Evaluation of the social science theories as proposed by Merton, Barnes, and Feyerabend will follow with conclusions being made for each theory as they appear in the text.
Weber’s concept of rationalisation can be referred to as a variety of processes that scrutinise all human action reducing it to calculable, measurable and controllable regulation; its main purpose being to reduce inefficiency, waste and overcapacity. One specific form of rationalisation, formal rationality, is unique to the modern West. Although no specific definition is given for this term, Ritzer suggests that formal rationality “means that the search by people for the optimal means to a given end is shaped by rules, regulations, and larger social structures”. In suggesting how these actions are exhibited within society, one can refer to Weber’s fourfold topology of actions. Of specific relevance is the notion of Zweckrational or rational goal-oriented action which, as suggested by Lee and Newby, “involves individuals constructing their own ideal-type in the form of a calculated predictive plan”. It consists of actions that are rationally evaluated and executed in order to achieve particular goals with the foresight to identify potential consequences or conflict before action commences.
An illustration of formal rationality, identified by Weber as a paradigm case, is the structure of modern bureaucracies. Zweckrational or rational goal-oriented action (i.e., formal rationality) is exhibited through the conduct of individuals within the bureaucratic system. Previously these individuals had to identify and seek out for themselves their own means to a given end, sometimes with the added assistance of larger value systems for example, religious institutions. The process of formal rationality as exhibited in modern bureaucracies, replaces this process. The optimum means are predetermined and have been institutionalised in rules, regulations and structures. This means individuals are simply required to follow these rules, regulations, and predetermined processes in order to meet the optimal means to an end. As such, there is less room for individual choice in how means to ends are met. Read more…
Thankfully, the ‘Ward Cleaver’ image of the family is on its way out yet, according to sociologists, the sexual inequality associated with assigning men the role of the economic provider and women as the child rearer and homemaker, is still very much in existence. These social stereotypes remain in spite of the fact that, within the last few decades, there has been a sharp increase in the number of mothers deciding to venture outside the home and into paid employment. Statistics show that the level of mothers in paid employment has risen from one in eight in the 1950’s to a present day estimate of over fifty percent and, according to the Department of Labor, in 2001 women were found to compose forty-eight percent of the entire labor force furthermore it is forecasted that in 2008 that percentage will equal or exceed 50 percent. The majority of mothers are in employment out of necessity, either because of single parenthood, divorce, widowhood or other factors, which place them in the role of sole, or primary, provider for the family. However, modern society still tends to define men as the ‘breadwinner’ whose career is of greater importance than that of women, who still appear to be generally labeled as the homemaker. This is most apparent in the household division of labor, with many working mothers commonly faced with an unequal workload of household tasks in addition to their paid employment, even in cases where the husband is unemployed or working in part-time employment.
A study by Wheelock examined the household division of labor in families where the woman was in paid employment and the man was unemployed. This was found to be a fairly unusual situation because in many cases where the husband becomes unemployed it appears that the wife is likely to do the same, in all likelihood as a result of the disincentive effect of the social security system. However, in the thirty families that were studied it was found that the primary responsibility for household tasks remained with the woman, although there was limited involvement by the partner. This inequality is further reinforced by the studies of Bielby and Bielby, which suggests that even in households where both partners are in paid employment, it is men who retain the majority of power in household decisions. Bielby and Bielby illustrate these findings by raising the point that, if the man is offered a promotion that involves the family having to relocate then, in most cases, the wife will comply, regardless of the effects on her own career. It was noted that as more women enter the work force and for a distinctive career choice this practice will no longer be the case. Socialization and social values play a large part in the maintenance of this inequality, as men, who do engage in household tasks, or childcare, are still commonly viewed as ‘helping out’ or ‘giving his wife a hand’, rather than fulfilling an expected social role. Read more…
The question is why do people abuse drugs? What causes them to go against society with this deviant behavior? Society has set its norms concerning what behavior is acceptable and what is not acceptable. In this paper I will summarize three Sociological Theories of Drug Abuse. These theories are: Anomie Theory, Labeling Theory, and Differential Association Theory.
According to Sociology at Hewett, Emile Durkheim developed the Anomie Theory in his book, The Division of Labour in Society that was published in 1893. The book also described Anomie as the breakdown that was happening in society. The social norms were breaking down and those norms no longer controlled the actions of people within the society. The expected behavior was changing and people did not know what to expect from each other.
Robert Merton applied this theory to drug abuse according to the text Social Problems to when there is a discrepancy between socially approved goals and the means of obtaining those goals. The theory states that if a person is prevented from achieving their set goals in life according to society’s norms they may be driven to use alcohol or drugs. The use of alcohol or drugs is an escape from the pressures of not reaching and obtaining what society dictates they should. For example in today’s society having a high paying job and to being able to purchase that $200,000 home that everyone else is purchasing. Society doesn’t provide enough high paying jobs for everyone to be able to reach this goal.
Goals need to be realistic and society needs to have the means for individual to meet their goals. The means for reaching goals needs to be equal for everyone. Because when people do not reach their goals they can turn to alcohol or drugs to experience the “highs” and “good feelings” as a substitute for their failures. This theory is also reinforced by Merton’s Stain Theory where he states, “Retreatism is the adaptation of those who give up not only the goals but also the means. They often retreat into the world of alcoholism and drug addiction. They escape into a non-productive, non-striving lifestyle.” These people will be labeled accordingly by society.
Read more…
