Compare and contrast the Functionalist and Marxist views of society.
Compare and contrast the Functionalist and Marxist views of society. Sociology has been classified as the last in a long line of emerging scientific disciplines which people have developed and explored in order to make sense of their world. Early theories such as the positivist approach of Comte, the functionalist views of Emile Durkheim and the conflict perspectives of Karl Marx have offered a view of why human beings behave as they do and how they fit together in society. Each theory has to some extent been shaped or influenced by the approach of others and many sociological explanations have comparisons or contrast that can be made. Browne once said "sociological perspectives centre on how much freedom or control the individual had to influence society" He goes on to comment on the two main approaches "structuralism is concerned with the overall structure of society and the way social institutions act as a constraint, or limit and control individual behaviour". Structuralism offers a view of the individual being controlled by the society they live in, Marx and Durkheim are similar in that they can both be described as structuralists, however their individual ideas are somewhat different. Functionalism was developed by Emile Durkheim, he believed like Comte that sociology should be viewed as a precise science and that society should be studied objectively. Durkheim
Assess the view that religion is a conservative force within society (40).
Assess the view that religion is a conservative force within society (40). A number of sociologists argue that religion is a conservative force in society, that is, it produces stability not change within society and it reinforces the shared needs and values of society. For some sociologists this is a positive effect - the view of consensus theorists, for others it is a negative one - the view endorsed by conflict theorists. Durkheim is a consensus theorist, sometimes referred to as the father of functionalism, he supports the view that religion is a conservative force in society, reinforcing the existing society of society. He argued that religion should not be explained in terms of human ignorance, but as a result of shared social needs. He adopted a broad definition of religion throughout his analysis and defined it as a unified belief system of beliefs about the nature of sacred things. For Durkheim, shared religious belief systems were central to societal consensus as they set rules for social interaction and offered social solidarity and value consensus. In his book, "Elementary Forms of Religious Life", he examined the sources of order and stability in society and highlighted the part that religion played in sustaining this order. Durkheim viewed religion as being a major source of social integration - all religious activity has one main function - the
Youth is just a biological stage" evaluate this claim
“Youth is just a biological stage- evaluate this claim” Youth is a period that is between childhood and adulthood. It is a term that people define in different ways and also apply to different age groups and many people argue that youth is a biological stage due to the changes going on in a child’s body and mind during puberty. However, many argue that youth is social constructed, due to influences on children such as the media and peer pressure from their friends. Youth can be defined as a biological stage for many reasons. One of the reasons is that biologically all youth go through hormonal changes at puberty. During this time young people will experience changes in their behaviour, tending to have mood swings and sometimes having lots of different emotions going through their minds. Whether they have the influence of others or not their attitudes towards different things will change and they will start to see things in different ways as they get older. Many teenagers will also go through times of being unsure about themselves, questioning things about their looks and appearance and might be irritable about themselves. All these things tend to happen no matter their influences. However, youth is not just a biological stage and although children grow physically their minds also, nowadays it appears that youth may be more related to ‘transition’ and change.
Are the differences between radical and liberal feminism greater than what unites them?
Are the differences between radical and liberal feminism greater than what unites them? Feminism was a twentieth-century invention that has only truly become familiar on a wide scale since the 1960's. In modern society feminism is invariably linked to the women's movement and the attempt to advance the social role of women. It is thus associated with two basic fundamental beliefs: those women are disadvantaged because of their sex; and that this disadvantage should be overthrown. Feminists have highlighted what they see as a political relationship between the sexes. Essentially this comes through the supremacy of men and consequential subjection of women in most, and some would argue, in all societies. Thus the goal of tackling this inherent problem is common throughout feminism. Nevertheless feminism has been characterised by a diversity of views and political positions, and perhaps there is an argument to say that the radical and liberal approaches to feminism are so contrasting, that the differences outweigh what unites them to such an extent, that they cannot be placed together under the same ideology. Through assessing the extent to which they differ, one can thus conclude whether the uniting factors pale in insignificance. Liberal feminism's philosophical basis lies in the principle of individualism contrasting to with the notion of 'sisterhood' evoked by some radical
Outline + Discuss the View That Roles of Men and Women in the Family are Becoming More Equal
Outline + Discuss the View That Roles of Men and Women in the Family are Becoming More Equal The aim of this essay is to attempt to come to a conclusion as to whether the gender roles within the modern-day family are equal, whether they are becoming more equal, and whether they shall ever be equal. In doing this, we shall have to study the views and opinions of many schools of thought, the results of different studies, and recognise and fully appreciate the arguments of different people and groups. The title question itself raises many debateable points, as it makes assumptions that ignore the diversity of the family. Firstly, and most obviously, the question assumes we shall only deal with heterosexually based families, not same-sex relationships. While same-sex families most definitely exist, they are a minority and do not really come into the issue of gender, therefore I shall ignore them for the course of this essay. Secondly, no two families are exactly the same. Families in different countries will no doubt have different attitudes on the subject of equality, and there will be noticeable differences across race, class and culture divisions, as well as between two different families with (superficially at least) a lot in common. This type of diversity would require its own set of studies and essays, and so for the sake of this essay I shall limit my studies to families
Assess the Functionalist claim that the family benefits both individuals and society as a whole
Assess the Functionalist claim that the family benefits both individuals and society as a whole. Felicity Edholm (1992) claimed that the family was a social construction. It is an important social factor, forming a part of the structure of today's society. The family can be said to create stability and focuses on the socialisation of the future society. The family can often be criticised for its "rosy" appearance, meaning that it is often mistaken for being too perfect, and the dark side of the family is often not portrayed e.g. domestic violence. Marxists in general would disagree with the idea of the perfect, as they believe the family benefits Capitalism. In 1949, Murdock claimed "The family is a social group characterised by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of who maintain a socially approved relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults." This therefore meant that Murdock claimed the "Nuclear Family" was universal, and families constructed of anything other than this, were not infact families. He believes that the structure of the family benefits individuals and society in four main ways Sexual, Reproduction, Education, and Economic. As the family forbids relations outside of marriage, it stabilises the system, and prevents conflict for the individuals
