#bessay

[irinacrutowa-blog]

Прогноз погоды для Bessay, Франция Прогноз погоды: Bessay, Франция

[cuturalcapitals]

Assess the relationship between sociology and social policy’ (33 marks) Sociologists often research social problems like poverty, divorce and juvenile delinquency. Some of these studies have been very influential in society and have been taken on board by governments and resulted in policy. When sociologists conduct research into social problems there is no guarantee that policy-makers such as the government, will use their findings to produce policies. There are many factors that may affect whether or not sociological research succeeds in influencing policy. This essay will assess these factors to show the relationship between sociology and social policy. Firstly, different factors affect how influential sociological research can be on social policy. Governments are at the mercy of the electorate. If the research findings recommend policy’s that may be unpopular with the voting public then the government in power is going to be reluctant to implement that policy because they want to stay in power. Therefore, if values and perspectives of the researchers are similar to the political ideology of the party in power then they stand more of a chance of influencing its policies. If they are not, then they would have difficulty in persuading them that their solutions will work.  Alongside this, pressure groups and globalization also affect how influential sociological research can be on social policy. The size and power of an interest group will affect how influential it will be. Large international companies will have more influence over government decisions and can pay for research which can be used effectively and back up the suggestions. In comparison, small pressure groups such as the ‘Women’s Liberation’ movement have to campaign for years before they have any affect, if at all, on social policies. Pressure groups seek to influence governments for their own interests. The power or popularity of these groups will affect whether they are considered. For example, business groups may succeed in persuading government not to raise minimum wage even though this would reduce poverty. In contrast with this, a group of students wanting to close all cigarette factories for the benefit of everyone’s health have less chance of influencing policy. Another example of this is Jamie Oliver’s influence on health and dietary habits, changing the policy on school dinners. Oliver was able to use his power as a successful well-known television chef and be heard on his campaign against unhealthy school meals. International organisations who have lots of power and influence can outweigh the evidence produced by sociologists. For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has persuaded governments to make less developed countries introduce fees for health care and education before aid is given. Despite evidence from social scientists which shows that the measure makes development less likely, the IMF has an overruling influence.  Furthermore, cost and funding affects the influence of sociology on social policy. Money affects the likelihood of findings being introduced. Sociological research can produce possible solutions to social problems that the government agrees with. However, they may not have the money to implement the recommendations. It costs to do research so sociologists need funding, taking into account the time a researcher is giving up, travel expenses, candidates and possible extra cost for paper and postage etc. Governments often fund research in order to justify their own policies, presenting evidence of their influence working or a definite need for their changes. The results of such research may be influenced by this, and so the findings may be ‘toned down’ in order to fit with the governments wishes. In addition to this, the area of research may not be a priority at that time thus meaning a researcher would struggle to get funding.  Marxists view the government as serving the ruling classes, they argue that social policies serve the interest of capitalism and not society as a whole. They argue that the role of the state represents the ruling class, legitimising the ideological, maintaining the labour force for further exploitation and is a means of preventing revolution. The use of the welfare state assists in making it appear as if the state care about vulnerable groups such as the elderly, sick and poor. The NHS is used to keep its work force healthy and fit enough to work, thereby maintaining its own workforce for further exploitation. When class conflict threatens capitalism, the state is used as a means of preventing revolution. For example, the creation of the welfare state after the war was a way of making sure that the working classes did not rise up and oppose capitalism. Marxists believe that sociological research will only influence social policy if it serves the interest of capitalism, for example, the NHS keeps its work force healthy. In contrast with this, they also believe that some social policy does provide a real benefit to the working class, however the provision of benefits and services are constantly threatened by welfare cuts.  Positivists and functionalists believe that sociology is a science and so can discover solutions to social problems. They believe that society is based on value consensus which is free from conflict and look at social problems that affect the whole of society, education health and housing. Early positivists Comte and Durkheim viewed sociology as a science. They believed that through scientific research they could discover both the problems of society and the solutions. For them, sociology’s role is to provide the state with objective scientific information that they can use to base their policies on. For example, Durkheim’s research led to his proposal of an education system based on merit and the abolition of inherited wealth. He argued that this would lead to a more cohesive society. Both positivism and functionalism believe that the government does serve the interest of society as a whole and so will produce social policies for the good of all based on their research. Functionalists tend to look at one issue at a time, for example, Marxists criticise this by pointing out the need to tackle inequalities in society as a whole before you tackle the working class underachievement in education.  In comparison with the positivist and functionalist approach, feminists view society as patriarchal and a way of reinforcing women’s subordination. For example, the state bases its policies on the nuclear family and so offers benefits to married couples, not cohabiting ones and thus are creating a self-fulfilling policy by encouraging the nuclear family. This makes it more difficult for other types of family. They see sociology influencing social policy that brings about women’s equality. Liberal feminists have been successful in influencing government policy, the Sex Discrimination Act, Equal Pay Act and changes in education have all been achieved through their influence. However, Marxists criticise feminists as, again, they see the need to tackle wider society first as otherwise these policy’s and laws will be manipulated and women will continue to be oppressed.  In contrast with these other perspectives, the new right perspective do not believe in state involvement in society. New Right thinkers believe that the states involvement in the family, income and support, education and health, take away peoples choices and feelings of responsibility for their own and their family’s welfare. They regard the welfare state as causing a dependency culture and want sociology to help develop policies that restore individual’s responsibility. In 2007 ‘Social Justice Policy Group’, a conservative think tank, proposed a range of social policies aimed at the family; marriage preparation, parenting classes, and tax relief and benefits for mothers who stay at home with their children. They see the role of social policy as something which is used to enable people to help themselves rather than have the welfare state do it for them. However, they are criticised for using ‘evidence’ from right wing ‘think tanks’ rather than sociological research.  Lastly, Social democratic perspective believes that society is based on inequality and conflict similar to Marxists but not so extreme. They claim that sociological research helps to make recommendations to the government in order to address the major inequalities in society. Peter Townsend’s research into poverty made recommendations to the government for more spending on the welfare state, education and health services. Black report (1980) looked at inequalities in health based on class, the report put forward 37 policy recommendations to reduce these inequalities; free school meals, improve working conditions, better benefits for the disabled and to improve housing. In this case, unfortunately there was a change in government before the report was published and so none of the recommendations were implemented due to cost. Additionally, governments have the power to ignore recommendations. Marxists criticise the social democratic perspective as they feel it does not go far enough. Marxists see capitalism as the problem, and therefore policies need to abolish that. They use the way the Conservative government used the Black report as evidence that a capitalist state will never spend public money on improving the situation for the working class. Postmodernists criticise attempts by these sociologists to influence policy due to their belief that all knowledge produced by research is only a version of the truth and therefore, is not a satisfactory bases for policy. Sociological research can and has influenced government policy. However, there are many factors that affect how influential their findings will be. Social policy should be based on sound reasoning gained from evidence produced through research. However the results of research can be manipulated for a number of reasons and can be motivated by personal interest. So if the results are in vogue at the time they will be accepted, if not they will be ignored. 

[cuturalcapitals]

INTRO: what feminism is about, give brief background to it. PARA 1: Mention liberal or reformist feminism, elaborate on what they are, mention cultural change and Socialisation.  Then criticise with AO2, state that marxist and radical feminists argue that liberal feminism ignore the underlyinc causes to women's subordiation. PARA 2: Introduce Radical feminism, give brief background to it and elaborate on their points eg -sexual politics -Women's liberation Then criticse on those points, eg utopian notions of separatism is unlikely to be achievable etc. PARA 3: Introduce Marxist Feminism, give brief background to it and explain how it functions for captalism and its ideological factors. You can then criticise it by saying that unpaid domestic labour benefits capitalism but it doesn't explain why it is women and not men who perform it. if you want to you can write more paragraphs on different feminist perspectives eg. dual systems feminism, difference feminism and poststucturalist femisim, but the three I've mentioned before will suffice. Then don't forget to conclude with an evaluation, and also if you're struggling to criticise the AO1 points, then bring other persepectives such as functionalism, Marxism, Postmoderism etc.

[cuturalcapitals]

Can anybody give me a brief essay plan/structure on post-modernism as a 33 marker??? Thank you!!

Hey! For an intro I'd talk about the basic assumptions of postmodernism. So Enlightenment is dead, we've entered a new era, surrounded by technology, diversity of lifestyles and so on but only in a brief kind of passing sentence as this will be covered later on. After this I'd discuss the differences between modern and postmodern society and explain why postmodernists argue that there has been a massive change. So for example, technological innovations have shown that science can be used for bad so people no longer believe in this meta-narrative of science helping the world, structures have broken down and people are now living in a diversity of lifestyles, people are no longer confined by gender/class etc compared to the past. Then probably a paragraph on family diversity to show synoptic links to the question so talking about one parent families, homosexual couples etc. Make sure you explain how this all shows that society is so fragmented and diverse now that modern theories can no longer apply as their information cannot account for this variation in lifestyles. Linking on from this lifestyles point, I'd talk about Bauman's pick and mix approach to culture. He discusses the idea that in a postmodern world, we all have access to varying cultures due to the media and we can construct our identities in any way we want. Link to religious choice, so if we want Buddhist beliefs mixed with Christian we can do that. We are no longer defined by structures but we construct our own selves as long as no one takes us too seriously and our fashions are always in flux, meaning we can always change. Evaluate this with a marxist/feminist comparison which argues that Bauman overstates freedom of choice and patriarchy/capitalism still oppresses people limiting their choices to this day. Refute this by saying that it is impossible to reject the view that cultural boundaries are becoming blurred as many people now immerse themselves in aspects of other classes, such as middle class binge drinking, something once seen as confined to the working class. Then talk about how this construction of reality relates to the way in which nothing is truly real anymore. Bring in Baudrillard's argument of simulacra, everything is a meaningless sign that stands for a false reality. Show Disneyland as an example as it is a fabrication of a fantasy world that we believe is real when we visit when it actually represents nothing in reality. Evaluate this by stating that we can distinguish reality and the media, people are not simply passive observes and can tell the difference between a war in a film and a war in real life on the news. Evaluate further with the Marxist argument that the media is owned by the bourgeoise and the idea of simulacra is an RSA to buy off oppression to the capitalist regime. State that regardless of the criticisms, it is important to note Baudrillard believes this fictional construction of the world means we cannot change the world anymore as nothing is real-Enlightenment is dead. Bring in Lyotard's idea that the world no longer relies on meta-narratives and instead celebrates diversity of viewpoints. No one has access to the truth, Enlightenment is dead due to the death of the scientific meta-narrative. We can only offer our viewpoint Then link this into their rejection of research methods. Postmodernists don't carry out research as it isn't a true view of the world, it is just someone elses viewpoint that is imposed through methodology. Criticise this with the logical flaw that if everything is based on meta-narratives, why should we trust Lyotard? Then bring in the idea of late modernity and Giddens/Beck, that we still can change this world by being reflexive. Conclusion would probably consist of stating that we have not truly entered the postmodern era yet but we will soon, and we need to prepare for when we do. Bit long winded and if it's too much cut down points that you don't feel confident on/don't like but I hope it helped in some way!

[cuturalcapitals]

religion a source of conflict

Look at this from 2 angles - 1) yes it is - common sense dictates examples for this one - look at war, terrorism and political correctness 'gone mad' in relationto religion. Look back historically and for many conflicts religion has been cited as a cause. Similarly, religion can be used to cause social revolution. Martin Luther King Jrs work for equality and the earlier abolition of slavery both partially stemmed from the relgious ideas about equality and rights of mankind in religious teachings. So in this way religion is definitely a source of social instability and sometimes - most of the time is would seem - of conflict. In some countries (Latin America for example) religious organisations teach people literacy skills etc which lead to them questioning the status quo (I'm not saying this is wrong...just a source of instability). Even in supposed secular countries or western societies religion is a hotpoint of contention surrounding abortion, sex etc.Weber would also argue that it caused/contributed to the development and spread of capitalism and therefore Change (aka Instability, even if just for a moment).HOWEVER 2) Despite religion being the cause of many conflicts and wars on the face of things, a number of other reasons are likely to supercede these... resentment of Westernisation and globalisation, economic factors, greed, etc. Similarly religion can be quite a conservative force. It often teaches people to accept things and not to be violent - so conflict is out of the question and the idea of an afterlife rewarding good deeds Marxists argue, lead people to accept less than they should have and still be content. In short, it prevents a revolution. Itis "the opium of the masses" and 'ideological state apparatus". It keeps things the same.

[cuturalcapitals]

Paragraph 1 - Introduction - Give a definition of Social Change and state that the three founding fathers (Marx, Durkheim and Weber) were interested in social change. Paragraph 2 - Functionalism - I'd start by mentioning functionalism. Write a paragraph saying what it's about (organic analogy, socialisation, norms and values, etc). - Identify and explain some studies: -- Durkheim - Totem Poles -- Parsons - Core Values -- Malinowski - Life Crisis and Unpredictable Events* -- Civil Religions* - Link back by saying that due to religion being responsible for keeping norms and values running, society is unable to change. Therefore, functionalism inhibits change. AO2: Functionalism is sometimes considered too positive and ignores negative aspects of society such as oppression and conflict. Paragraph 3 - Marxism - Like Functionalism, Marxism states religion inhibits change. Write a little bit about Marxism and how it states that there is conflict between the middle and working classes. - Identify and explain some studies: -- Halvey -- Leech -- Hook -- Caste System* -- Camel Quote - "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven".* -- Divine Right of Kings* AO2: Neo-Marxism - Otto Maduro and Liberation Theology. Could also mention Abercrombie, Hill and Turner along with Engles too. Paragraph 4 - Feminism - Like Marxism, Feminism also inhibits change. Write a brief paragraph explaining how feminists believe religion passes on partriarchal ideologies and therefore oppresses women. - Identify and explain some studies: -- Daly* --- Religious Images* --- Religious Teachings* --- Religious Hierarchy* -- Walby AO2: Veiling. Paragraph 5 - Weber - Unlike the others, Weber states that religion can instigate change. -- The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism* AO2: Some Calvinist populations didn't turn into a capitalist society. Stark and Bainbridge suggested religion is used as a "Compensator" too. Paragraph 6 - Middle Range - This is a much more diplomatic approach which suggests that it depends on the nature of each individual religion as to whether it brings about change or not. It focuses on the POTENTIAL. - McGuire* - Belief* - Culture - Social Location - Internal Organisation* Finish by concluding that religion has evidence to suggest that it can both inhibit and instigate change. Weber and Neo-Marxism suggests it can instigate change whilst Functionalism, (Classical) Marxism and Feminism all suggest religion inhibits change. The Middle Range theory focuses on the potential to bring about change rather than committing itself. Remember that the question may ask you to give examples too... so you could refer to 9/11 for Malinowski's Functionalist study. Liberation Theology focuses on the protests in Nicaragua. You may wish to talk about the issues in Northern Ireland which were spurred on by religious conflict, or perhaps the Arab-Israeli Conflict too.

[cuturalcapitals]

This is my secularisation one:  1) Define (Bruce, Wilson, Casanova) 2) YES in decline: (classical theorists, supported by Bruce, Comte, Brierley (with empirical evidence), Voas and Crockett and Hervieu-Leger.) 3)NO not in decline: (Stark and Bainbridge, Bruce and ethnic minorities, religion globally and Casanova fundamentalism) 4) NO just changing: (New age, Greenley, Heelas and Woodhead, davie, bibby, postmodernists eg Lyon and Hervieu-Leger.  5) Conclusion.

[cuturalcapitals]

Assess the view that fundamentalism is a reaction to globalisation

par 1: give a definition of  fundamentalism, indicating its possible forms and suggesting why it has been the focus of recent sociological interest

e.g. 

The past century has witnessed the global growth of fundamentalist groups. These include Islamic fundamentalist countries like Iran and Afghanistan, Christian fundamentalists in the USA, Zionist fundamentalists in Israel and Hindu fundamentalists in India. Fundamentalists tend to share the common features of having a world-view that is based on a literal reading and strict adherence to the written word of holy texts. These texts become the source of traditional values and sometimes the content becomes the basis of a literal interpretation of certain truths. Fundamentalism is about the application of such ideas to a rigid faith, which is then applied to modern-day life. 

par 2: nature of fundamentalism, but becomes much more focused on the question, offering several explanations for its growth.

Fundamentalism is rooted in words and messages of historical holy texts, such as the Bible or the Koran. Therefore the values of fundamentalism are centred on reaffirming essential truths as expressed in these important texts. However, the question remains as to why fundamentalism is growing at such a pace now. Some theorists, like Bruce, explain its growth primarily in terms of an anti-West sentiment in a post-colonial world. Others have linked its growth to factors like globalisation. Some see fundamentalism as filling a vacuum when former ideologies decline, such as the decline in Marxism in the countries of former Yugoslavia. Others see a connection between the growth of fundamentalism and the superficial nature of postmodern society. 

par 3: castells

par 4: link to cultural defence theory

A common feature of fundamentalist movements is they are often headed by a charismatic leader, such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was the spiritual leader who returned to Iran from exile following the deportation of the Shah. It is suggested that a strong and commanding leader is needed in order to support the call for a return to traditional values.

par 5: link to 'clash of civilisations'

 Another characteristic of fundamentalism is the conviction that it is right and that all other religions are wrong. Therefore fundamentalism has no time for religious pluralism and vehemently pursues an ‘us and them’ mentality. It therefore follows that fundamentalists are often involved in conflict. For example, the motive behind Islamic terrorism is not only an anti-Western response but the view that all ‘infidels’ deserve to be killed.

par 6: evaluate using bruce saying that this is limited to monotheistic religions 

par 7: postmodernism

Some people see the growth of fundamentalism as a response to an increasingly superficial postmodernist society. With the growth of the ‘spiritual shopper’, on the one hand, there is a polar response of individuals returning to traditional truths found in holy texts like the Bible or Koran. However, the actual numbers of people engaged in fundamentalism or new religious movements tends to be small. Both could be genuinely described as marginal in the UK, whereas fundamentalism could be viewed as much stronger in countries like Iran.

In conclusion, the factors behind the growth of fundamentalism are multiple, suggesting that it is rarely down to just one reason. Although fundamentalism receives a lot of media coverage there is a tendency for it to appear more significant than it actually is. Nonetheless it remains a formidable force and raises important questions about the future of religion and the secularisation debate.