Doctors have drawn up the Bio-medical model and it is the model that all western medicine is based on. The five assumptions that it centres around have in recent time been subject to much scepticism and criticism. It is clear to most sociologists that the model is not representative of all modern illness and therefore it lacks and that it is a very narrow approach to all kinds of illness be it physical or mental.

The model fails to take into account much of what surrounds mental health problems. By using the model to categorise all health issues it means that mental health has to be put under one of the five assumptions and is therefore treated accordingly. It fails to take into account what it is that might cause mental deterioration. Also much of the model is based on old stereotypical ideal, which have come under scrutiny from feminist who argue that the model takes away much of the traditional roles particularly in childbirth which was taken in as a medical condition thus changing the way in which undertaken. By using the basis of the bio-model many mental illness have been placed under the umbrella of a clinical illness and so therefore enabling them to be treated under a medial condition. As Tyrer and Steinberg say ‘ in a model making era there can be a risk to identify clinical entities prematurely and this may lead a person into difficulties’ . This is the case with the bio-medical when it comes to mental illness. The bio-medical model scientific basis can claim superiority over alternative forms of healing. Because of the scientific basis of the model it can push out other traditional or modern form of treatment. The can relate directly to they way in which the patient is treated in regard to their illness. If the person is treated for a mental illness that a doctor has diagnosed according to the symptoms and treats using drugs and as a mental illness then they are using the medical model. If the doctor looks a t the surroundings of the individual and tries to see what has caused this mental imbalance then that is a total different approach. This is what sociology has done to show what the inadequacies are caused by the bio-medical model. It has looked beyond the lines with which diagnosis reached and looked for other symptoms in a persons life that could have caused the problem ‘as the bulk of ‘mental illness’ has no proven bodily cause.’ So by saying that there is no biological explanation for many mental illnesses then it does not seem that should be treated as if they fitted into the model.
Over history mental illness has been stereotyped to mean certain things. Going along way back it was said to have been a singe of the devil and other supernatural possessions and was stigmatised against due to this. Only until fairly recently has some of this stigma been taken away. Women have always statistically been more prone to mental related illness. This gendered view was seen due to people believing that women were weaker than men. In Freud’s study in 1885 on psychoanalysis in Paris this is clear. He believed that this only affected women so all his research was done using female patients and so the results were entirely one sided. Sociology has opened up a new side into the study of the causes of mental illness. It has looked into the social reasons behind it. There are many social reasons why someone might suffer from mental illnesses. People now recognise that it can be caused through the direct result of other actions such as child abuse, divorce, motherhood and financial stress. All these circumstances and more can result in the mental illness of some kind. Economic pressures are a common cause of several illnesses namely schizophrenia that had much higher occurrences in poorer areas, this study was done in Chicago in the 1930’s. There are several reasons for illness being more common in poorer areas, one being the ‘drift’ affect which is loss of earning through poor health which results in the health deterioration more as there is no financial support. And those in higher have a better standard of living so are less likely to be faced with the same kind of social stress. Pilgrim and Rogers say that there is definite correlation between the two ‘it can be demonstrated unequivocally that social stress is correlated with social class.’ This is related to Marist critique of the bio-medical model as it a direct consequence of capitalism that a class in more susceptible to contract illness through a direct result of their economic status. Also they think that the medical profession is run by the educated upper class whose interest it is to keep the lower classes happy as they make up the workforce needed for the growth of the economy.
Sociology has helped change many of the ideas surrounding the treatment and the cure of the problem of mental illness. Prevention is better then cure so it more worthwhile for health agencies to try and prevent the increase in the number of people who suffer. This is very hard in the case of mental illness as is it often near impossible to predict in a person. Social welfare in areas of poverty to give people support when going through problems can try and catch the problem before it develops into a full-grown mental illness. There have been some efforts made by the medical profession to try and prevent illnesses in general including mental health by setting up health promotion clinics around areas that are prone to certain types of illness. Recently we have seen the decrease in the believe that hospitals and technological medicine and the rise in the primary health care due to the medical profession basing much of their finding on technology and the bio-model and also in biographical and holistic medicine. In recent times there has been an increase in the number of patients that have been diagnosed with a mental illness and not the other way round as you might expect with the advances made in medical knowledge. This may not be due to the more cases but the fact that more people are willing to accept that they suffer from a mental illness and will approach their doctor more openly especially in men. So statistically there might not be singe that strategies for cure and prevention don’t show a decrees.
Sociology has played a key role in the development into the study of mental health it clearly shows that there is a problem with the bio-model in regarded to the treatment of mental health and due to it has been phased out over the years no longer be at the forefront of modern medicine when it comes to these problems. It s inadequacy to be flexible to patients that do not fit within its five ‘assumptions’ are the reason for this. Likewise is the causation of the mental illness. Only as recently as two hundred years ago people believed that women had smaller brains than men and it was due to this that were susceptible to contract mental conditions. Women have been particularly affected through history by mental illness due to gendered approach that was made towards medicine in particular this area. This gendered view and the fact that more men are suffering from mental illnesses now than ever shows the shift in these believes. Sociology has helped bring this understanding about that it is caused as much by social surrounding and situation as anything. And finally the strategies that have been used to cure, care and prevent these illnesses are based around these findings so cure is shifting towards the social environment rather than the drugs being given. This makes treatment for ill patients far more relaxing and easer to get through than being put in a institution and left there until they are deemed better by doctors. And without this study into the illnesses by sociologist and other social sciences the medical profession might not have made the step forward in the treatment for mentally ill patients.

        

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.

Hate crimes are committed all over the world and before the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1998 they were categorized with other crimes such as homicide, assault, rape, robbery, and arson. This act, passed in 1998, allowed federal authorities to investigate activities such as attending school, voting, and/or crossing state borders. The act also made categories of hate crimes more well known and in-depth (dealing with federal agents and other policing organizations, as well as the public). These categories would be, for example, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Thousands of crimes are committed all the time due to the fact that someone is ‘different’ from someone else.

One of the most commonly known hate groups is the Ku Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist organization that wreaked havoc in the south of the United States after the Civil War. This group was organizes in Pulaski, Tennessee on December 24, 1865 by six confederate army officers. The group began as just a prank towards society, but soon developed into much more. They believed that ‘white power’ was the almighty race and all other races were nothing. The KKK generally targeted African Americans, due to their strong belief that “God hates Blacks!” Their goal was to prevent African Americans from voting, and ‘being free’ in society.

When people would revolt or ignore warning of the KKK, the organization would harass, mutilate, and even murder their enemies. In some cases the KKK would burn a cross on someone’s property symbolizing that one, if not all, of the members of that household would be the next murdered on the Ku Klux Klan’s list.

The most recent hate crime committed dealing with the KKK was in June of 1998 in Jasper, Texas. John King, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan was driving with two other men one night when he saw a black man walking with what seemed to be a limp. This man, James Byrd, was returning home from his niece’s engagement party when three King and the two other men offered to drive him home. Byrd agreed and the three men began the drive in King’s truck. All of a sudden the truck stopped and the men began to viciously beat Byrd until he was unconscious. Byrd was then chained by the ankles to the back of the pick up truck and dragged for nearly three miles until his body was mutilated by the pavement. The law has tried many times to stop the Ku Klux Klan from committing any more deviant acts and has virtually succeeded. Fortunately it is very rare to see any more Klan related activity nowadays.

The Klan is only one example of deviant groups in our society. Many other groups harass, mutilate, and kill only for the pleasure of gaining more ‘power’ or to ‘rid the world of its social minorities’. Murder is committed everyday due to ones race, religion, gender, etc. Thousands of these examples include:

1. The Holocaust- slaughter of over six million Jews and others due to religion, race, etc.
2. Murder of Matthew Shepard- murder of a homosexual college student that was beaten and chained to a fence, left in the cold to die. Due only to his sexual preference.
3. Severe beating of Korean woman- In May 1997 a 62-year-old Korean American woman was attacked in San Francisco and suffered a broken hip. The man she was attacked by assumed she was Chinese.
4. Labor Camps of Japanese- Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Japanese men and women were put into slave camps just because they were Japanese.
5. Homosexual Victims- Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender victims of a crime are far more likely to receive more physical and psychological damage to their body than any other victims of abuse. Beaten more severely only because they have a different sexual preference.

The previous examples are only some of the thousands of hate crimes committed all over the world. In order to diminish these horrible acts in our society, law enforcement officers, leaders, and the community must work together and try to prevent it. If we don’t begin to stop these crimes, who will?

Due to the differing subject matter of the social sciences to that of the natural sciences, many sociologist believe that the methods used by natural sciences to conduct research are inappropriate and limited when concerned with human behaviour. However, all sociologists do not share the same opinion or paradigm. In fact there are several schools of thought held by sociologists with regard to the accurate gathering and analysis of data. These views can be widely categorised to include:

        

- Functionalist, quantative or scientific approach
- Humanistic, qualitative or interpretive approach

Functionalism is a perspective that regards empirical data and sensory facts as the only valid and reliable data that can be gathered. Functionalists believe that . sociologists should aim at establishing general laws describing human behaviour from which predictions can be made. One such influential sociologist is Emile Durkheim. Durkheim (1982) believed that sociology should be the objective study of ?social facts rather than the study of individuals. He defined the term ?social fact to be. every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraintwhile at the same time existing in it?s own right independent of its individual manifestations. (Durkeim, 1966) This definition constitutes the idea that things such as morals, laws, customs, beliefs and fashions exist on their own and can be empirically studied. Functionalists believe that objective observation and measurement of the social world is not possible. Under the banner of functionalism, includes the Marxist theory, compiled be Karl Marx and the various feminist theories and collective ideas. Methodology commonly used by functionalists consists of a hypothesis to be tested and analysed. Clinical testing with two or more variables that are controlled by the researcher does this.
Interpretive perspective or humanists, on the other hand, believes the basis of sociology is the interpretation of social actions. Humanists feel the need for sociologists to explain the meaning behind human behaviours and not just that they occurred. They feel that the subject matter of the social sciences (human behaviour) is too different for the use of the natural sciences (physical entities) research methods. A fundamental sociologist in favour of this perspective is Max Weber, who firmly believes that the focus should be on the individual rather than on collectives. He emphasised the importance of recognising that human beings have a level of “free will”, which allows them to make decisions for themselves. People do things that are meaningful to them. Another prominent sociologist in favour of a humanistic approach is Anthony Giddens. Giddens has stated that .any approach to the social sciences which seeks to express their epistemology and ambitions as directly similar to those of the science of nature is condemned to failure in it?s own terms, and can only result in a limited understanding of human society.Anthony Giddens suggested that sociology should look at the reasons why people behave how they do and not purely determine behaviour. Perspectives included under the general heading of Interpretive include Phenomenology, a more radical approach to interpretive research methods that disagrees completely with the use of any naturalistic research methods and Symbolic interactionism, whose followers believe that individuals possess a self-conceptwhich is built up or modified in the process of interaction with other members of society.

Interpretive research .attempts to understand the meanings that people bring to their environment and is often descriptive. Methodology commonly used amongst interpretive research involves field tests, participant observation, personal and detailed interviews to become familiar with the subjects.
Comparisons to the natural sciences are inevitable as all disciplines stemmed throughout history from the one discipline of science. However, sociology is a combination of both interpretive and functionalist perspectives and when effectively applied to methodology one is able to make sense of human behaviour. Sociology by definition is .the description and analysis of the social forces that shape human behaviour in contemporary social life Sociologists are interested in looking at society as both individuals and groups and their effects on society as a whole. To do this appropriately and in enough detail, a combination of functionist and interpretive methodology must be used.

Because all humans enjoy the freedom of choice and the agency to defy rational thought, it becomes extremely difficult to construct laws of human behaviour, as was preferred by the functionalists. Cause and effect might never be the same for all human beings. Thus, the classic experimental mode of science would most likely not be appropriate and is unable to tell us the important information of why a subject responds in a certain manner. An empirical science cannot tell anyone what he should do rather what he can do (Weber, 1949). For research to attempt to be objective, the influence of the researcher should not occur.

A range of interpretive and scientific investigation will enable a more thorough and accurate result. Controlled laboratory testing on humans is unethical and highly unnatural. People being controlled and studied under a microscope are going to behave differently than they would in their natural setting. Alternative methods involving surveys and field participation from the interpretive approach would be more productive. For these reasons humanistic behaviour requires alternative methods to the natural sciences whilst maintaining a scientific attitude to gathering and analysing empirical data. Research should be guided by a theory but should also study all aspects of the subjects available to have a greater understanding of the results they may find. It is therefore appropriate to say that the methods used by those of the natural sciences can be applied to the social sciences.

        

In order to understand how Weber’s work is more important to study than Durkheim’s, it is essential to identify the main aspects of each theory. Weber felt that the study of sociology should be approached through examining the modes of action, with action being defined as purposeful and meaningful behavior. The main focus of this idea is that action has become more rational over time, in what Weber called rationalization. This concept of rationalization is the suggestion that throughout the course of history, behavior has been more carefully planned, articulated, and deliberate, with the goal that the means are to bring about the most desired ends. Unlike Weber, Durkheim placed emphasis on the structure of society. He insisted that sociology was not only the science of society, but that human actions draw from society, not the individual behavior or motivations. He also felt that social structure and culture were entities separate from people, and that this structure served as a function that forces individuals to act within the confinements of society. Thus, human behavior is essentially the function of society, and not the other way around.

Since Weber argued that sociology should be examined through human behavior, and Durkheim made the case for social structure, then it can be said that these two theorists have obvious conflicting views. Thus, in a debate over which approach is better, a measure of generalizability can be useful in determining the winner. When explaining trends in deviant behavior, delinquency, and suicide, Durkheim’s work is the best route to take, and without a doubt he is the most influential sociologist in the previously mentioned fields. Essentially, Durkheim makes the case that since deviant behavior is defined as “going against cultural norms” that the structure of society places a set of limits on what is considered culturally acceptable behavior, and therefore, behavior does serve as a function of society.

However, although they are important, Durkheim’s views are limited. Weber challenges Durkheim’s notions, and his concepts of human behavior in society can be used to explain social change, revolution, and politics. For example, his theory can be used to give reasons for the Jewish Holocaust and the linkage between the Protestant Ethic and capitalism. Formal rationalization, which in short states that the ends justifies the means helps provide answers to how a high ranking Nazi officer could give an order to kill a few thousand people. The Nazis had a desired goal of world dominance, and one of the steps in insuring that power, was to weed out the alleged weaker beings. Thus, their desire justified their behavior, because the end result was what held the most importance. The link between the Protestant Ethic and Weber’s notions is clear through his notion of rational thought. When the Protestant faith eliminated the need for intercession between man and God, it created individual responsibility to each person. This created an ethic of work geared towards investment and saving, which advances capitalism. God became more distant and detached from the world, and thus the world became increasingly reliant on the human conscious and rational action. The Jewish holocaust and the Protestant Ethic are two examples of how Weber’s theory can be used to explain human life; however, his theory is not limited to these illustrations. Thus, it is fair to say that when compared to Durkheim, Weber’s theory is more generalizable, meaning that it can be used to explain several different areas or phenomena of human life.

Weber’s theory not only has more generalizability than Durkheim’s, but it also has more predictability. Once again, Durkheim’s theory focuses on the structure of society, and not each social structure is exactly the same. Nonetheless, many of the same problems that exists in society “ a”, exists in society “ b”, which demonstrates that there must be other factors involved with norms and behaviors in society that are completely unrelated to its structure. If Durkheim’s theory was predictable, then societies with identical or close to identical structures would have similar crime rates and social issues. However, evidence supports that there are several countries that are very similar to the United States with significantly lower crime rates. On the other hand, due to the fact that Weber’s theory gets the same, or at least similar results every time, his theory is more predictable. Over time, society has become increasingly more planned out and thorough, and regardless of the society, it seems to be the case that class, status, and party are independent from one another. It is totally plausible for a Latin American woman to be a Republican doctor apart of the American Medical Association, and live in the ghetto. She is considered to be apart of the lower class, not because she lives in the ghetto, but because instead of working in a nice hospital, she has devoted her time and energy into a free clinic in the inner city, and thus, does not make enough money to live outside of the ghetto. However, she still holds a high status since she is a doctor, but her class does not match her status, and her party does not stereotypically match her class. This can be seen all over the world through missionary doctors, pro-bono lawyers, and even lottery winners. Lottery winners usually come from a lower status, but can still be apart of the upper class due to their wealth. Weber’s conceptions of class, status, and party are predictable in the sense that they are independent of one another, and one does not predict the other, which is what makes Weber’s ideas more predictable. Weber would also contend that although patterns need to be identified in society, that the context of these patterns need to be analyzed carefully and not be asserted as absolute laws of human behavior. This allows for more predictability because, within similar contexts alike behavior occurs, which takes place more often than similar behavior with unalike circumstances.

Just as Weber’s ideas have more generalizability and predictability than Durkheim’s, they also have more novelty. This can be particularly seen in Weber’s notions of understanding, or as he called it, “verstehen.” Weber felt that it was important to study and understand how people gave meaning to their actions. This is truly original for his time period, because for many years prior to Weber, researchers and sociologists had focused on the action without any thought about the intentions or meaning behind it. Someone being burned at the stake for treason does not hold nearly as much insight unless the story was told that the executed person’s treason was that he/she stood up for their belief that God was more powerful than the king. Hearing that a woman viciously killed her husband may sound horrendous without knowing it was after she caught him raping her two year old child. Weber studied sociology this way, and that is what makes his ideas more creative than Durkheim. Although Durkheim’s conception of anomie, the potential for disorder due to weak conflicting or absent norms and limitless wants, created a way for self exploration and human growth, it did not change sociology as Weber’s theories.

In conclusion, Weber’s theory should be examined over Durkheim’s because it has more generalizability, predictability, and novelty. It is clear that Weber’s notions of rationalization, capitalism, class, status, party, and versthen make his sociological theory better than Durkheim’s ideas of solidarity, anomie, and social facts. Therefore it is highly recommended that Weber be included on the syllabus rather than Durkheim.

        

Something is the society within us. Why are hamburgers delicious? Because something tells us they are delicious – the society we live in. I learned Sciences are divided in natural science; to comprehend, explain, and predict events in the natural environment. And social science, which seek to understand the social world objectively by means of controlled and repeated observations. Natural Sciences: are the intellectual and academic disciplines designed to comprehend, explain, and predict the events in our natural environment. Specialized fields of natural science according to subject matter include: biology, geology, chemistry, and physics.

I found it interesting to learn that social sciences examine human relationships, i.e., Psychology focuses on the processes that occur within the individual; primarily on mental processes (what occurs in the brain or the mind). Sociology is similar to the other social sciences; how people govern one another, what happens to the goods and services of society – but sociologists place their focus on the social consequences of production and distribution. Sociologists do not concentrate on a single social institution – they focus primarily on industrialized societies, and stress factors external to the individual to determine what influences people. Economics study the production and distribution of the material goods and services of a society, i.e., what goods are being produced at what rate and at what cost, and how they will be distributed. Political science is the politics and government, the study of how people govern themselves. Anthropology – the sister discipline of sociology, understand culture, a people’s total way of life, i.e., the groups artifacts, such as its tools, art, and weapons; the groups structure – how its members interact with one another. If found the study of Values, Norms, and Sanctions especially interesting with Values being people’s ideas of what is desirable in life, and Norms being the expectations concerning the right way to reflect values; rules of behavior, that develop our of a group’s values. Sanctions refer to the reactions people get for following or breaking norms. A positive sanction is an expression of approval given for following a norm, i.e., monetary awards, prizes, hugs, smiles, etc…, while a negative sanction reflects disapproval for breaking a norm, i.e., harsh words or gestures, stares, raised fists, etc…

Folkways and Mores: Folkways are norms that are not strictly enforced, walking down the street with no shirt. Mores are norms taken more seriously; our core values, i.e., rape, stealing, murder. Taboo refers to norms strongly ingrained that even the thought of its violation is greeted with revulsion, i.e., eating human flesh – judged as to not fit to live in the same society as others; sanctions are severe and may include prison, banishment or death.