Summary
Summary sociology essay examples
- Institution
- AQA
mixed exam response examples for past paper questions aqa
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Outline and explain two reasons why Marxists would choose to study certain topics andnot others:
Marxists prioritize topics that align with their theoretical framework, which emphasizes the
centrality of class struggle and economic relations in shaping society. Therefore, Marxists are
likely to prioritize topics related to capitalism, class exploitation, and economic inequality.
For example, they might study issues such as labour exploitation, wage inequality, capitalist
accumulation, and the dynamics of class conflict. By focusing on these topics, Marxists aim
to uncover the underlying structures and mechanisms that perpetuate social inequality and
exploitation within capitalist societies, in line with their goal of challenging and ultimately
transcending the capitalist system.
Marxists are also interested in topics that allow them to critique prevailing ideologies and
power structures that uphold the status quo. Therefore, they may prioritize studying areas
such as media representations, education systems, cultural production, and state
institutions. By analysing these topics through a Marxist lens, scholars aim to uncover how
dominant ideologies and institutions serve the interests of the ruling class while
perpetuating false consciousness among the working class. For example, Marxists might
examine how media representations reinforce capitalist values or how education systems
reproduce social inequality by legitimizing the existing social order. Through such analyses,
Marxists seek to reveal the ideological underpinnings of social systems and challenge the
legitimacy of dominant power structures.
In summary, Marxists choose to study certain topics over others because of their focus on
class struggle and economic relations, which leads them to prioritize topics related to
capitalism and social inequality. Additionally, Marxists are interested in critiquing prevailing
ideologies and power structures, leading them to prioritize topics that allow them to analyse
how dominant institutions perpetuate and reinforce the status quo.
Outline and explain two ways modernity differs from postmodernity:
In modernity, there was a belief in meta-narratives or overarching theories that explained
the progression of society and history. These meta-narratives provided a sense of unity,
coherence, and direction to human existence. Examples include Enlightenment ideals of
progress, Marxist theories of historical dialectics, and liberal narratives of democracy and
capitalism. However, in postmodernity, there is a rejection of these grand narratives in
favour of fragmentation and plurality. Postmodernists argue that no single narrative or
theory can encompass the complexity of contemporary society. Instead, there is a
recognition of multiple perspectives, competing truths, and localized forms of knowledge.
Postmodernism celebrates diversity, difference, and ambiguity, challenging the notion of a
universal truth or a single path of progress.
Modernity was characterized by a sense of certainty and confidence in the ability of reason,
science, and technology to solve social problems and improve human life. Modernist
thinkers believed in the possibility of progress through rational inquiry and empirical
evidence. However, postmodernity is marked by scepticism and distrust of grand narratives,
,universal truths, and authoritative knowledge claims. Postmodernists critique the idea of
objective reality and question the neutrality of scientific knowledge. They argue that
knowledge is socially constructed, contingent, and context-dependent, shaped by power
dynamics and cultural biases. Postmodernism challenges the notion of absolute truth,
emphasizing the importance of questioning, deconstruction, and scepticism in
understanding the complexities of contemporary society.
In summary, modernity differs from postmodernity in its embrace of grand meta-narratives
and certainty, whereas postmodernity favours fragmentation and scepticism. Modernity
believes in progress through reason and science, while postmodernity questions the
possibility of universal truths and challenges the authority of knowledge systems. These
differences reflect broader shifts in cultural, philosophical, and social thought between the
modern and postmodern eras.
‘Positivists argue that sociology can adopt the methods and logic of the natural sciences
such as physics and chemistry. In their view, this will enable sociologists to discover the laws
of cause and effect that govern human behaviour.
However, interpretivists argue that our behaviour is based on meanings that cannot be
studied using scientific methods. Other critics argue that the positivists' view of the natural
sciences is incorrect’ (20 marks)
Applying material from Item C and your knowledge, evaluate the view that sociology can
and should be a science:
Natural sciences refer to the use of empirical methods to uncover cause and effect
relationships and hypothesises that can be tested using scientific methods. Under this
approach, behaviour can be explained as a direct response to external stimulus, rather than
through internal consciousness. The modernist approach, of which emerged during the 17th
and 18th centuries, coinciding with the Enlightenment, which is a period characterised by a
renewed emphasis on reason, logic, and scientific inquiry.
Maintaining strong connections to modernism is the positivist approach which with
emphasizes the use of scientific methods to study social phenomena objectively, aiming for
empirical verification and generaliszable findings. One argument supporting sociology as a
science from a positivist viewpoint is its use of quantitative methods to analyse social data
systematically. Durkheim's study on suicide exemplifies this approach,h within which he
employed statistical analysis to study the social factors influencing suicide rates. He
categorized suicides based on variables such as marital status, religious affiliation, and social
integration, using quantitative data to identify patterns and correlations. By applying
statistical techniques, Durkheim’s aim was to uncover the social causes underlying suicide
rates, thereby demonstrating a scientific approach to studying human behaviour and social
phenomena, through the process of quantifying social causes of behaviour.
Opposingly, interpretivism in sociology emphasises understanding social phenomena from
the perspective of individuals and their subjective experiences, focusing on meanings,
symbols, and context, of which goes against the view that sociology is a science. Despite the
emphasis on qualitative methods and subjective understanding, sociology can still be
,considered a science from an interpretivist viewpoint. One argument in support of this
perspective is therefore the use of qualitative methods, such as participant observation and
in-depth open interviews, to explore the meanings that individuals attach to their social
experiences. For example, in ethnographic studies, researchers immerse themselves in a
particular social context to gain a deeper understanding of the social dynamics and cultural
meanings shaping people's behaviours and interactions. Conversely, Douglas does not view
sociology as a science, supporting the view of Mead that humans maintain free will, and
display behaviours that cannot be reduced to social factors as a determent of actions.
Douglas therefore rejects the positivist viewpoint, invalidating Durkheim’s claim by
proposing that the quantitative data used within his study on suicide is in fact a social
construction developed based on coroners’ reports, rather than scientificly obtained
knowledge. With Atkinson arguing that not even the interpretivist favoured approach of
qualitative data would be successful as to uncovering a scientific understanding of suicide.
Therefore, interpretivists stand by the perspective that sociology cannot be a science on the
grounds that human behaviour is not influenced by external stimulus and that the use of
experimental methodology does not uncover internal meanings of human behaviour.
There are various other perspectives surrounding the debate of sociology being a science,
such as sociologist Popper who argued for the falsifiability criterion as a hallmark of scientific
theories. According to Popper, for a discipline to be considered scientific, its theories must
be capable of being falsified through empirical testing. This criterion poses a challenge for
sociology, as it deals with complex human behaviour and social phenomena’s that are not
always easily quantifiable or subject to controlled experimentation. Kuhn, on the other
hand, argued that scientific disciplines operate within dominant paradigms, that shape the
way researchers perceive and interpret data. This perspective discredits the argument for
sociology as a science due to there being a wide range of theoretical perspectives within the
study of society, of which do not present an overall truth or metanarrative for explaining
human behaviour. This therefore infers that sociology cannot be viewed as a science due to
theorists being unable to reach a conclusive paradigm.
From these perspectives, it can be argued that sociology can be considered a science, albeit
with certain qualifications. As, while sociology may not always adhere strictly to Popper's
falsifiability criterion due to the complexity of its subject matter, it does exhibit
characteristics of scientific inquiry, such as systematic observation, theory development, and
empirical testing. Moreover, Kuhn's framework acknowledges the evolution of sociological
knowledge through the formation of paradigms, which aligns with the dynamic nature of
scientific inquiry. However, various approaches within sociology, such as interpretivist, do
not prioritize generalisability or quantifiable data to the same extent as opposing
approaches, although they still adhere to systematic inquiry and rigorous analysis, these
gaps in effective use of scientific methods towards the study of sociology hinder the
argument as to the topic being a science. On the other hand,As for sociology being a science
the hypothetico-deductive method, proposed by positivists, can be implemented for
purpose of using experiments to obtain observable data that can either affirm or reject a
hypothesis in a scientific manner. Overall, as for sociology being a science, iInterpretivists
agree with this perspective that science is the study of observable phenomenon, however,
argue that human behaviour, as studied within sociology, is not a science as it is caused by
internal factors that cannot be observed.
, Analyse the opinion that socialisation recreates and legitimises social inequality:
Socialisation is the process of learning norms and values of society. It is primarily started in
the family but reinforced by wider society and social institutions such as the media, religion,
and school. Conflict theorists, such as the Marxists and feminists, argue that the socialisation
process recreates and legitimises social inequality through canalisation and the gender roles
as well as the transmission of ruling class ideology. However, you could argue that these
theories are deterministic and out of date. Despite this, the argument that socialisation
legitimises and reproduces social inequality is still accurate.
The source indicates that the socialisation process legitimises and reproduces social
inequality through the transmission of ruling class ideology, which benefits the ruling class
over the working class. Althusser argues that ideological state apparatus, such as the family
and education system, transmit ruling class and therefore capitalist values as normal and
inevitable and ultimately fair as it creates a myth of meritocracy. The ideology and values
that are transmitted suggest that if a person works hard and conforms to societal values,
they will do well and become part of the ruling class. However, this suggests that people are
generally passive recipients of their socialisation, accepting it without question. This is
clearly not the case as society has evolved over time and social values have changed, partly
due to people rejecting societal values and, therefore, their socialisation. This is, however,
the exception rather than the rule and the view that socialisation legitimises and reproduces
social inequality is accurate.
Another way that socialisation legitimises and reproduces social inequality is through the
ability of the ruling class to normalise the inequality and make it seem natural. Gramsci
refers to this as hegemony, where the ruling class establish a common sense or value
consensus. This is where most of the society accept the norms and values that they are
socialised into because they see it as common sense and normal. This means that the ruling
class rarely needs to deploy repressive state apparatus, such as the police or military, to
prevent revolution from occurring because the people are effectively controlling themselves
by buying into the ruling class hegemony. However, this is a deterministic view and suggests
that people are passive recipients of their socialisation and blindly accept the false class
consciousness of ruling class ideology. Despite this, socialisation does still legitimise and
reproduce social inequality as the hegemony is accepted within society.
Feminists also argue that socialisation reproduces and legitimises social inequality as gender
inequality passes through the socialisation system and ensures the patriarchy is perceived as
being normal and natural. Oakley argues that boys and girls are socialised differently into
following gendered scripts of behaviour. Oakley suggests that parents use verbal
appellations to subtly shape roles and expectations. For example, girls are verbally rewarded
for docile and passive behaviour whereas aggressive and dominant behaviour is passed off
as ‘boys will be boys'. This reinforces the belief that women are naturally more passive to
boys. However, you could argue this perception is out of date. Recent trends in parenting are
much more gender neutral and there is an increase in boys and girls playing with the same
toys. However, there is still very subtle canalisation in the socialisation of children which
leads to the legitimising of social inequality.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller carabotfield. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53340 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now