MARCH/ APRIL 2021

Q) Explain the theoretical perspective of sociology.

A theoretical perspective is a set of assumptions about reality that inform the
questions we ask and the kinds of answers we arrive at as a result. In this sense,
a theoretical perspective can be understood as a lens through which we look,
serving to focus or distort what we see. It can also be thought of as a frame,
which serves to both include and exclude certain things from our view. The
field of sociology itself is a theoretical perspective based on the assumption that
social systems such as society and the family actually exist, that culture, social
structure, statuses, and roles are real.
A theoretical perspective is important for research because it serves to organize
our thoughts and ideas and make them clear to others. Often, sociologists use
multiple theoretical perspectives simultaneously as they frame research
questions, design and conduct research, and analyze their results.
Macro versus Micro
There is one major theoretical and practical division within the field of
sociology, and that is the division between macro and micro approaches to
studying society. Though they are often viewed as competing perspectives—
with macro focused on the big picture of social structure, patterns, and trends,
and micro-focused on the minutiae of individual experience and everyday life—
they are actually complementary and mutually dependent.
The Functionalist Perspective
The functionalist perspective also called functionalism, originates in the work of
French sociologist Émile Durkheim, one of the founding thinkers of sociology.
Durkheim's interest was in how social order could be possible, and how society
maintains stability. His writings on this topic came to be viewed as the essence
of the functionalist perspective, but others contributed to and refined it,
including Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons, and Robert K. Merton. The
functionalist perspective operates on the macro-theoretical level.

The Interactionist Perspective

The interactionist perspective was developed by American sociologist George
Herbert Mead. It is a micro-theoretical approach that focuses on understanding
how meaning is generated through processes of social interaction. This
perspective assumes that meaning is derived from everyday social interaction,
and thus, is a social construct. Another prominent theoretical perspective, that of
symbolic interaction, was developed by another American, Herbert Blumer,
from the interactionist paradigm. This theory, which you can read more about
here, focuses on how we use as symbols, like clothing, to communicate with
each other; how we create, maintain, and present a coherent self to those around
us, and how through social interaction we create and maintain a certain
understanding of society and what happens within it.
The Conflict Perspective
The conflict perspective is derived from the writing of Karl Marx and assumes
that conflicts arise when resources, status, and power are unevenly distributed
between groups in society. According to this theory, conflicts that arise because
of inequality are what foster social change. From the conflict perspective, power
can take the form of control of material resources and wealth, of politics and the
institutions that make up society, and can be measured as a function of one's
social status relative to others (as with race, class, and gender, among other
things). Other sociologists and scholars associated with this perspective include
Antonio Gramsci, C. Wright Mills, and the members of the Frankfurt School,
who developed critical theory.
The Feminist Perspective
Feminist theory was developed to fill a void in Marxism and neo-Marxism that
examined class, but not gender as a distinct category. Feminist theory examines
gender and gender inequality and also points out the male-centric aspects of
conflict theory. It focuses on analyzing the limitations faced by women when
they claim the right to equality with men. Additionally, feminist scholars
examine the gendered nature of human interactions, which makes it a
microsociological as opposed to a macrosociological theory.
Feminist scholars study a range of topics, including sexual orientation, race,
economic status, and nationality. However, at the core of feminist sociology is
the idea that, in most societies, women have been systematically oppressed, and
that men have been historically dominant. This system of seemingly “natural”
male control is referred to as patriarchy.
Q) Nature of Sociology.
According to Robert Bierstedt:
Sociology is the branch of knowledge and it has its own characteristics.
Sociology has different nature in society. It is different from other sciences in
certain respects. The following are the main characteristics of sociology as
enlisted by Robert Bierstedt in his book ” The Social Order” and they are as
follows:-
1. Sociology is an independent science:- Sociology has now emerged into
an independent science. It is not treated and studied as a branch of any
other science, like philosophy or political philosophy, or history. As an
independent science is has its own field of study, boundary and method.
2. Sociology is a social science not a physical science:- Sociology belongs
to the family of social sciences, and not to the family of physical science.
As a social science, it concentrates its attention on man, his social
behaviors, social activities and social life. As a member of the family of
social sciences it is intimately related to other social science like history,
political science, economic, philosophy, anthropology etc. The fact that
sociology deles with the social universe distinguishes it from astronomy,
physics, Chemistry, Geology, Mathematics and others physical sciences.
3. Sociology is a categorical and not a normative discipline:- Sociology
“confines itself to statements about what is, not what should be or ought
to be”. As a science, sociology is necessary silent about question of value.
It does not make any kind of value-judgment. Its approach is neither
moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is ethically neutral, but does not mean
that sociological knowledge is useless serves no purpose it only means
that sociology as a discipline can’t deal with problems of good and evil,
Right and wrong, and moral or immoral.
4. Sociology is a pure science and not an applied science: – A distinction is
often made between pure sciences and applied sciences. The main aim of
pure sciences is the acquisition of knowledge and it is not bothered
whether the acquired knowledge is useful or can be put to use on the
other hand, the aim of applied science is to apply the acquired knowledge
into life and to put it to use. Each pure science may have its own applied
field. For example Physics is a pure science and engineering is it’s
applied field. Sociology as a pure science has its applied field. Such as
administration diplomacy, social work etc. Each pure science may have
more than one application. Sociology is a pure science, because the
immediate aim of sociology is the acquisition of knowledge about human
society, not the utilization of that knowledge.
5. Sociology is relatively an abstract science not a concrete science:- This
does not mean that sociology is an art and not a science. Nor does it
 mean, it is unnecessarily complicated and unduly difficult. It only means
that sociology is not interested in concrete manifestations of human
events. It is more concerned with the form of human events and there
patterns. For example sociology is not concerned with particular war and
revolutions but with war and revolution in general, as social phenomena
as types of social conflict. Similarly, Sociology does not confine itself to
the study of this society that particular society, or social organization, or
marriage, or religion, or group and so on. It is in this simple sense that
sociology is an abstract not a concrete science.
6. Sociology is a generalizing and not a particularizing or Individualizing
Science:- Sociology tries to find out the general laws or principles about
human interaction or situation, about the nature, From, Content, and
structure of human group of societies. It does not study each and every
event that takes place in the society. It is not possible also. It tries to make
generalization on the basic of the study of some selected events. For
example, a sociologist makes generalizations about the nature of
secondary groups. He may conclude that secondary groups are
comparatively bigger in size, less stable, not necessarily specially limited
and so on. This he does not by examine all the secondary group but by
observing and studying a few.
7. Sociology is a general Science and not a special Social Science :- The area
of inquiry of sociology is general and not specialize. It is concerned with
human interaction and human life in general other social sciences like
political Science, History, Economic etc, also study man and human
interaction, but not all about human interaction. They concentrate their
attention on certain aspects of human interaction and activities.
Accordingly Economic specializes itself in the study of economic
activities. Political science concentrates on political activities and so on.
Sociology, of-course dose not investigate Economic, Religious, Political,
Legal, Moral or any other special kind of phenomenal in relation to
human life and activities as such. It only studies human activities in a
general way.
8. Finally, Sociology is both a Rational and an Empirical Science :- There
are two broad ways of approach to scientific knowledge. One, Known as
Empiricism is the approach that Empiricists experience and the facts that
result from observation and experimentation. The other, known as
rationalism stresses reason and the theories that result from logical
inference. The Empiricists collects fact; the rationalist co-ordinates and
arranges them. Theories and facts are required in the construction of
knowledge. In Sociological inquiry both are significant. As Immanual
 Kant said, “Theories without facts are empty, and facts without theories
are blind”. All modern sciences, there-for avail them-self of both
Empirical and Rational Sciences. Sociology is not an exception.
Q) Explain Sociological Theories
Q) Write a short note on Grand Theories.
Grand theory is a term coined by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills in
The Sociological Imagination to refer to the form of highly abstract theorizing
in which the formal organization and arrangement of concepts takes priority
over understanding the social world. In his view, grand theory is more or less
separate from concrete concerns of everyday life and its variety in time and
space. Mills's main target was Talcott Parsons, also an American sociologist and
the architect of structural functionalism, against whom Mills insisted that there
is no grand theory in the sense of one universal scheme to understand the unity
of social structures. In Parsons view "grand theory" integrated not only
sociological concepts, but also psychological, economic, political, and religious
or philosophical components. He tried to integrate all the social sciences within
an overarching theoretical framework.
Bythe1980s, grand theory was reformulated to include theories such as critical
theory, structuralism, structural Marxism, and Structuration Theory—all
influenced human geography. Barnes and Gregory confirmed this, and noticed
in addition, “No matter the phenomenon investigated, it could always be slotted
in to a wider theoretical scheme. Nothing would be left out; everything would
be explained.” Gregory puts forth two critical responses to this (reformulated)
grand theory. First, there has been continuing debate about the scope of theory
in human geography, with the focus on the relation between theory and
empiricism. Some authors thought of a ‘theory-less world of empiricism’, in
contrast to others who foresaw a fixation on theory—meaning the threat of the
‘theorization of theories’, second order abstractions twice removed from the
empirical world. Secondly, no single theoretical system can possibly ask all the
interesting questions or provide all the satisfying answers. A third response,
such as in Engaged theory and global studies, has been to carry forward the
aspiration to understand the 'social whole', but without the totalizing claims of
'grand theory'. One social theorist talks of the search as:"...to find a pathway
between and beyond the modern confidence in grand theory and the post
modern rejection of other than piece-meal explanations forth is and that
discursive practice. It does so, not by setting up a grand theory, but by setting up
a sensitizing and generalizing ‘grand method’ to explore the structures and
subjectivities of social formations that traverse history as we know it."
Grand theory is a set of abstract ideas that together make a broad statement
about human beings the environment or maybe engineering. A grand theory is
broad in scope. It is made up of concepts and propositions that are less abstract
and general than the concepts and propositions. A grand theory is used in place
of a conceptual model as a guide for research or practice. Thus grand theory is
nothing but overall explanation of phenomena in a particular discipline or realm
of experiences. Grand theory is a systematic methodology in the social sciences
involving the generation of theory from data. Grand theory is a broad
conceptual scheme with system of interrelated propositions that provide a
general frame of reference for the study of social processes and institution.
Grand theories are complex and broadest in scope. It focus in general, non
specific and abstract. It focus on concepts – concepts are lack operational
definitions and not directly amenable to testing. It can be used in variety of
setting and populations.
Grand theories are theories which deal with the universal aspects of social
processor problems and are based on abstract ideas and concepts rather than on
specific evidence. This includes social conflict, functionalism, symbolic
Interactionalism and social exchange.
Grand theories are associating and disassociate of concepts is well worth
considering. The fact is that it is not readily understandable the suspicion is that
it may not be altogether intelligible. This is to be sure a protective advantage,
but it is a disadvantage in so far as its pronunciation are intended to influence
the working habits of social scientist.
There are two fold structure of grand theories are binding:-
a. The first place by virtue of Internalization of the standard conformity with it
tends to be personal expressive or instrumental significance to ego.
b. In the second place, the structuring of the reactions to ego action as sanction
is a function of his conformity with the standard. Therefore conformity as a
direct mode of the fulfillment of his own need dispositions tends to coincide
with conformity as a condition of eliciting the favourable and avoiding the
unfavourable reaction of others. In fact many of the idea of grand theories when
translated are more or less standard ones available in many textbooks of
sociology. There are two major ways by which the social equilibrium
maintained by which should either or both fail disequilibrium results.
1.The first is socialization all the ways by which the new born Individual is
made into a social process. Part of this social making of person consists in their
acquiring motives for taking the social action.
2.The second social control.
The best classification and definition of these social control have Been given by
Max weber
1.To characterize the logical style of thinking represented by Grand theory
2.To make clear a certain generic confusion
3.To indicate how most social science now setup and solve Parsons problem of
order.
The grand theory is fact set for the realm of concepts from which Are excluded
many structural features of human society, features long and accurately
recognized as fundamental to its understanding.
Example for grand theories are population, socialization, Psychological
analysis, power, social structure, self roles, status social stratification and social
learning(behaviorism).
Q) Explain the concept of structural functionalism of R.K.Merton
Robert King Merton (1910-2003) is a self-styled “Durkheimian,” writing very
much in the functional tradition. In conceiving of society as a system it becomes
natural to see it, like other systems, as composed of parts that are interrelated
and whose operations have consequences on the whole. For example, when
examining a simple system like the human body it becomes readily apparent
that the various organs are interrelated and impact the overall health of the
body. So is it with sociocultural systems. Functional analysis is a consequence
of thinking of society as a total system. Functionalism is the analysis of social
phenomena in terms of their effect on other phenomena and on the sociocultural
system as a whole.
The functional orientation has long been implicit in biology and physiology, as
well as in the social sciences of anthropology, economics, and sociology. Social
scientists as diverse as Malthus, Spencer, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber have
each engaged in describing the interrelationships between social phenomena. To
take a famous example, Weber wrote of the effect that a religious belief, what
he called the “Protestant Ethic,” had on the rise of capitalism. In a more explicit
functional reference, Durkheim wrote of the “functions” of criminal punishment
in terms of its impact upon criminal behavior as well as its effect on society as a
whole (it serves to bind society together, making explicit the rules as well as
building consensus around these rules).
Robert K. Merton’s signal contribution to functionalism lies in his clarification
and codification of functional analysis. Specifically, Merton:
 strips functionalism bare of the unexamined and insupportable
assumptions of many of its practitioners,
 broadens the analysis to incorporate change as well as stability,
 makes critical distinctions between functions and personal motives,
 develops a descriptive protocol for functional analysis to guide the
analyst in social observations, and
 engages in the functional analysis of a variety of sociocultural phenomena
to demonstrate the utility of the perspective.
One assumption of traditional functionalism is that all widespread activities or
items are functional for the entire system. Functional unity, Merton stated,
cannot be assumed; at most it is an empirical question to be determined by
social research. Further, it is possible for some social or cultural items to have
functions for some groups within a social system and not for others. Instead,
Merton offered a “provisional assumption” that widespread and persisting
sociocultural forms have a “net balance” of positive over negative
consequences.
A second assumption of traditional functionalism is that all such prevalent
activities and cultural elements have sociological functions and are therefore
necessary for the maintenance of that system. Sociocultural systems may well
have functional needs or prerequisites, Merton asserted, but these needs may be
met by a diversity of forms. Calling it a “major theorem of functional analysis,”
Merton asserted that “just as the same item may have multiple functions, so may
the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items”.
One of the charges hurled against functional analysis in the 1940s and 1950s,
and still echoed today, is that functionalism is an inherently conservative
perspective devoted to preserving the status quo. Merton suggested that this
charge is due to the fact that analysts, chiefly in anthropology, have adopted
these postulates that are untenable and unnecessary to the functional orientation.
To offset the focus on stability of traditional functionalism, Merton introduced
the concept of “dysfunction.” Whereas functions contribute to the adjustment of
the system, dysfunctions are those consequences that lead to instability and
ultimately change. The analyst must recognize, Merton asserted, that
institutional structures and cultural elements are interrelated and mutually
supporting, and that the dominant orientation of sociocultural systems is to
stability. “As we survey the course of history, it seems reasonably clear that all
major social structures have in due course been cumulatively modified or
abruptly terminated. In either event, they have not been eternally fixed and
unyielding to change”.
Merton insisted that social structures can only be analyzed in terms of both
statics (stability) and dynamics (change). The concept of dysfunction allows
functional theory to focus on change. The concept of dysfunction is based on
tension, strain, or contradictions within component elements of sociocultural
systems. Dysfunctional elements create pressures for change within the system.
Social mechanisms within the system, including the interrelation and
predominantly mutually supporting elements of the system, operate to keep
these strains in check, attempting to limit or minimize change of the social
structure. However, such mechanisms are not always effective, and the
accumulation of stress and resulting conflict often cause systemic change. One
of the primary goals of functional analysis is to identify these dysfunctions and
examine how they are contained or reduced in the sociocultural system as well
as how they sometimes cause systemic or fundamental change.
“Functions are those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or
adjustment of a given system; and dysfunctions, those observed consequences
which lessen adaptation or adjustment of the system.” Motive, on the other
hand, is the subjective orientation of the actor engaged in the behavior. The
failure to distinguish between functions and motives is one of the chief sources
of confusion for students of functionalism. The observer Merton is implicitly
referring to is the social scientist.
The descriptive protocol recommended by Merton consists of four postulates.
First, the analyst should make a systematic account of the pattern of behavior of
interest as well as the people participating in the behavior. This account should
include a detailed description of the social status of participants and onlookers
as well as the types and rates of their interactions. Merton, always concerned
with the relationships between theory and methods, attempted to summarize the
types of data needed to be collected to perform functional analysis. What types
of data need to be included in observations, and what types of data can be safely
excluded? These descriptions, Merton claimed, go a long way toward
suggesting functional interpretations.

The second item of the descriptive protocol calls for the analyst to explore other
possible patterns, perhaps those of other sociocultural systems that represent
alternative ways of dealing with the problem under study. For example, Merton
pointed out that the “romantic love complex” as the basis for
AmericanTransform your Thinking marriage excludes other patterns for choice
of mates such as parental selection or marriage as an economic alliance. By
comparing the American pattern to these other cultural forms, the analyst often
can tease out the different structural positions that benefit (functions) or are hurt
by (dysfunctions) the cultural form under analysis.
The third item in the protocol is to describe the various meanings that the
pattern of behavior has for the various participants and members of the group.
Such meanings often give the analyst clues as to the social functions of these
sociocultural items. Such meanings often give the analyst clues as to the social
functions of these sociocultural items
The fourth protocol is for the analyst to give account of the motivations of the
people who both conform or deviate from the pattern under study. Again, these
personal motives should not be confused with social functions, but they do
serve a purpose in functional analysis. “Inclusion of motives in the descriptive
account helps explain the psychological functions subserved by the pattern and
often proves suggestive with respect to the social functions”. “Inclusion of
motives in the descriptive account helps explain the psychological functions
subserved by the pattern and often proves suggestive with respect to the social
functions”.
Q) Write a short note on Problem of role analysis S.F. Nodal.
Nadel was a close associate of Professor Radcliffe-Brown. He developed the
theory of social structure in his book entitled, Theory of Social Structure (1957).
In this book, Nadel pointed out that the concept of society may be viewed from
two angles: (i) action such as kinship and economics, and (ii) groupings such as
family, clans. He also says that there are some social and cultural facts which
fall outside the social and cultural scheme. These refers to an action
autonomous.
Nadel helds view that the concept of social structure is still in a sense on trial.
The variety of definitions lead us to fear that it is a concept the width of whose
usages renders it analytically fruitless. Thus, there are two choices open to us.
We may remove the concept of structure from the vocabulary of anthropology
on account of its lack of precision or we can attempt to narrowly define it by
giving a specific and limited connotation.

Role Analysis :
Linton put forward a simple two-fold classification dividing roles into those
which are ascribed (assigned to individuals without reference to their innate
differences or abilities) and those which are achieved (left open to be filled
through competition and individual effort). The criteria for ascribed roles must
be evident at birth, making it possible to begin training immediately and
eliminating all uncertainty. Such criteria are those of sex, age, kinship relations,
and birth into a particular class or caste.
Achieved roles, however are given to the people whose individual performance
qualifies them as the most meritorious. This classification is based on the mode
of allocation of roles.
Another procedure is to classify roles according to the principal social domains
in which they are exercised. An example is Aidan Southall’s five fold division:
kinship and ethnic, economic, political, ritual or religious, and recreational.
Nadel tries to marry Linton’s distinction with this sort of scheme. For various
reasons he prefers to treat ascribed roles as part of more general category of
‘recruitment roles’, but it is not necessary to recapitulate this argument. One
difficulty, Nadel recognizes, is that some roles are paired together while others
can be played by themselves. The role of a doctor is a paired or ‘relational’ role
because it is invariably associated with that of creditor and apart from this
interrelation neither role has nay general significance. The role of husband
similarly has meaning almost exclusively in connection with that of wife, the
role of friend with friend etc. Yet some roles, like king, poet, Christian, scholar,
can be opposed only to so large a public that they define a pattern of expected
behaviour rather than a social relationship. These are non-relational roles. It will
be noticed that according to Nadel sex roles belong in the latter category, which
is perhaps arguable, but at least a consideration of the difficulties created by
such differences will show how hard it is to include all kinds of role within any
one scheme.
Nadel’s classification of roles is, as he says, ‘based mainly on their content, i.e.
on the particular conduct they are meant to imply’. This has hitherto been the
usual approach to the problem. By role differentiation is meant the extent to
which incumbency of one role is independent of incumbency of other roles. For
example, the role of golfer is highly differentiated from the rest of the social
structure; anyone can play golf, men and women, young and old, of whatever
religion, race, class or occupation. By comparison, the role of priest is tried into
the social structure very closely; only men of a certain disposition and education
are acceptable, and once ordained their role restricts their social participation.
This is a contrast in the extent to which different roles are differentiated from
other roles in the sense that they can be organized independently.
Critic :
One problem in the classification of roles is the difference between roles that
are paired and those that stand virtually by themselves. This leads to place them
in separate categories as relational and non-relational, and some such procedure
seems inevitable so long as the classification is based upon content. A
classification of roles according to their differentiation does not have to treat
paired roles separately, through the elements by which it classifies them are
often incidental to the main focus of these roles. Kinship roles are always
paired. E.g. mother-son, but a mother’s behaviour towards her son belongs to
the content of the role and is of no significance in locating her role on the scale.
Its placement is decided by the extent to which being a mother of a male child
confers prestige, gives a woman the privilege of associating with other mothers,
and is relevant to relations with people other than her sons and daughters. While
the elimination of content has advantages for certain kinds of role analysis, its
disadvantages in other connections will be obvious.
Q) Explain the concept of social structure according to A.R.Radcliffe
Brown.
According to Radcliffe-Brown, the basic requirement of any science is a body
of coherent concepts. These concepts are to be denoted by technical terms that
are accepted and used in the same sense by all the students of the subject. For
instance, physicists use terms like ‘atom’, ‘molecule’, ‘combustion’ etc.
The meanings and usages of these terms do not change from student to student.
Can the same thing be said about sociology and social anthropology ? Radcliffe-
Brown points out that in anthropological literature, the same word is used in the
same sense by different writers and many terms are used without precise
definition. This shows the immaturity of the science.
Social Structure and Social Organisation
As Radcliffe-Brown (1958: 168) puts it, “the concept of structure refers to an
arrangement of parts or components related to one another in some sort of larger
unity.” Thus, the structure of the human body at first appears as an arrangement
of various tissues and organs. If we go deeper, it is ultimately an arrangement of
cells and fluids.
In social structure, the basic elements are human beings or persons involved in
social life. The arrangement of persons in relation to each other is the social
structure. For instance, persons in our country are arranged into castes. Thus
caste is a structural feature of Indian social life. The structure of a family is the
relation of parents, children, grandparents etc. with each other. Hence, for
Radcliffe-Brown, structure is not an abstraction but empirical reality itself. It
must be noted that Radcliffe-Brown’s conception of social structure differs from
that of other social anthropologists.
How does one seek out the structural features of social life? Radcliffe Brown
says we must look out for social groups of all kinds, and examine their
structure. Within groups, people are arranged in terms of classes, categories,
castes etc. A most important structural feature, in Radcliffe Brown’s opinion, is
the arrangement of people into dyadic relationships or person-to-person
relationships, e.g. master-servant or mother’s brother sister’s son. A social
structure is fully apparent during inter-group interactions, and interpersonal
interactions. Having had a preliminary look at the concept of social structure, let
us see what Radcliffe-Brown meant by social organisation. Structure, as we
have seen, refers to arrangements of persons. Organisation refers to
arrangements of activities. For instance, whilst studying this Block you have
organised your activities, i.e. reading a particular section, attempting the
exercises, referring to keywords whenever necessary etc. This is organisation at
the individual level. Social organisation is for Radcliffe-Brown (1958: 169) “the
arrangement of activities of two or more persons adjusted to give a united
combined activity”. For instance, a cricket team consists of bowlers, bat-
persons, fieldpersons and a wicket-keeper whose combined activities make the
game possible.
Radcliffe-Brown illustrates the concepts of structure and organisation with
reference to a modern army. To begin with, the structure consists of
arrangement of persons into groups: divisions, regiments, companies etc. These
groups have an internal arrangement of their own, namely ranks. Thus we have
corporals, majors, colonels, brigadiers etc.
The organisation of the army or arrangement of activities can be seen in the
allocation of various activities to various persons and groups. Manning the
borders of the land, helping the Government during times of national calamity
etc. are some of the activities of an army.
Social Structure and Institutions
One of the basic premises underlying a social relationship (which, as we have
seen, is the building block of social structure) is the expectation that persons
will conform to certain norms or rules. An institution refers to an established,
socially recognised system of norms and behaviour patterns concerned with
some aspect of social life. A society’s family-related institutions, for example,
set down acceptable patterns of behaviour to which family members are
expected to conform. In our society, a child is expected to show respect to the
parents; the parents are expected to support and care for the child as well as
aged members of the family and so on.
Institutions, in Radcliffe-Brown’s (1958:175) words, “define for a person how
he is expected to behave, and also how he may expect others to behave”. Of
course, individuals do violate these rules from time to time and various
sanctions exist to cope with deviations. According to Radcliffe Brown, social
structure has to be described in terms of the institutions, which regulate the
relationships between persons or groups. As he puts it, “the structural features
of social life of a particular region consist of all those continuing arrangements
of persons in institutional relationships, which are exhibited in the actions, and
interactions that in their totality make up the social life.”
Structural Continuity and Structural Form
If, as Radcliffe-Brown describes it, social structure refers to an arrangement of
persons, we could conclude that once the persons die or disappear, structure
must also disappear. This, however, is not the case. Individuals may come and
go, but structure persists or continues. For example, social groups, classes,
castes, have an ever-changing membership. They lose members by death and
gain new ones by birth. For example, the Lok Sabha may lose members who
may die, resign, or lose the next election, but they will soon be replaced by new
ones. A tribal chief may die, but soon a successor takes his place. At this stage,
we must highlight the distinction made by Radcliffe-Brown between social
structure and structural form.
As we have seen above, the social structure is always in a state of flux.
Individuals are born and die, the composition of society is ever-changing.
Radcliffe-Brown argues that although social structures are in flux, the structural
form is comparatively stable. This structural form is reflected in the ‘social
usages’ or norms widely observed. These social usages persist, even though
persons come and go. The stability of this structural form depends on how well
integrated its parts are (e.g. family, educational system, political system etc.)
and the performance by these parts of the special tasks necessary to maintain it.
For instance, the special task of the family is the rearing and socialisation of
children. Educational institutions impart training, the political system is
concerned with governance. These tasks refer to ‘functions’ of the parts of the
system. We will study Radcliffe Brown’s notion of ‘function’ in detail in the
next unit. As a word of caution it may be said that Radcliffe-Brown’s distinction
between social structure and social form is not made absolutely clear even in his
own writings, where the latter comes out as synonymous with social
organisation.
In a nutshell, ‘social structure’, an important social anthropological concept
developed by Radcliffe-Brown, refers to empirically observable phenomena,
namely, arrangements or relationships of the members of a society. There is an
organisational aspect as well, which refers to a pattern of arranging the activities
people engage in. Social structure involves institutions, which define socially
acceptable rules and modes of inter personal behaviour. Social structure is
constantly in a state of flux, but the structural form an abstract concept taking
into account social usages is relatively stable. Its stability depends on how
effectively its component parts carry out their ‘functions’. Thus far, we have
been talking about social structure in a rather abstract way. The best way to
make these ideas crystal clear is through an example.
Radcliffe-Brown’s field studies took him to various parts of the world from the
Andaman Islands to Africa and to Australia. We will now focus upon the
structural system of the tribes of the Western Australia as studied by Radcliffe-
Brown. This will clearly demonstrate to you how social relationships help to
build up the social structure.
Q) Pattern variables - Talcott Parsons
Q) Explain the Karl Max conflict theory
Q) Class struggle theory
According to Marxism, there are two main classes of people: The bourgeoisie
controls the capital and means of production, and the proletariat provide the
labour. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels say that for most of history, there has
been a struggle between those two classes. This struggle is known as class
struggle. After The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, this concept became
well known.
It is important to recognize that Marx viewed the structure of society in relation
to its major classes, and the struggle between them as the engine of change in
this structure. His was no equilibrium or consensus theory. Conflict was not
deviational within society's structure, nor were classes functional elements
maintaining the system. The structure itself was a derivative of and ingredient in
the struggle of classes. His was a conflict view of modem (nineteenth century)
society.
The key to understanding Marx is his class definition.1 A class is defined by the
ownership of property. Such ownership vests a person with the power to
exclude others from the property and to use it for personal purposes. In relation
to property there are three great classes of society: the bourgeoisie (who own
the means of production such as machinery and factory buildings, and whose
source of income is profit), landowners (whose income is rent), and the
proletariat (who own their labor and sell it for a wage).
Class thus is determined by property, not by income or status. These are
determined by distribution and consumption, which itself ultimately reflects the
production and power relations of classes. The social conditions of bourgeoisie
production are defined by bourgeois property. Class is therefore a theoretical
and formal relationship among individuals.
The force transforming latent class membership into a struggle of classes is
class interest. Out of similar class situations, individuals come to act similarly.
They develop a mutual dependence, a community, a shared interest interrelated
with a common income of profit or of wages. From this common interest classes
are formed, and for Marx, individuals form classes to the extent that their
interests engage them in a struggle with the opposite class.
At first, the interests associated with land ownership and rent are different from
those of the bourgeoisie. But as society matures, capital (i.e., the property of
production) and land ownership merge, as do the interests of landowners and
bourgeoisie. Finally the relation of production, the natural opposition between
proletariat and bourgeoisie, determines all other activities.
As Marx saw the development of class conflict, the struggle between classes
was initially confined to individual factories. Eventually, given the maturing of
capitalism, the growing disparity between life conditions of bourgeoisie and
proletariat, and the increasing homogenization within each class, individual
struggles become generalized to coalitions across factories. Increasingly class
conflict is manifested at the societal level. Class consciousness is increased,
common interests and policies are organized, and the use of and struggle for
political power occurs. Classes become political forces.
The distribution of political power is determined by power over production (i.e.,
capital). Capital confers political power, which the bourgeois class uses to
legitimatize and protect their property and consequent social relations. Class
relations are political, and in the mature capitalist society, the state's business is
that of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of state rule, the ideas
justifying the use of state power and its distribution, are those of the ruling
class. The intellectual-social culture is merely a superstructure resting on the
relation of production, on ownership of the means of production.
Finally, the division between classes will widen and the condition of the
exploited worker will deteriorate so badly that social structure collapses: the
class struggle is transformed into a proletarian revolution. The workers' triumph
will eliminate the basis of class division in property through public ownership
of the means of production. With the basis of classes thus wiped away, a
classless society will ensue (by definition), and since political power to protect
the bourgeoisie against the workers is unnecessary, political authority and the
state will wither away.
Overall, there are six elements in Marx's view of class conflict.
1) Classes are authority relationships based on property ownership.
2) A class defines groupings of individuals with shared life situations, thus
interests.
3) Classes are naturally antagonistic by virtue of their interests.
4) Imminent within modern society is the growth of two antagonistic classes
and their struggle, which eventually absorbs all social relations.
5) Political organization and Power is an instrumentality of class struggle,
and reigning ideas are its reflection.
6) Structural change is a consequence of the class struggle.
Marx's emphasis on class conflict as constituting the dynamics of social change,
his awareness that change was not random but the outcome of a conflict of
interests, and his view of social relations as based on power were contributions
of the first magnitude. However, time and history have invalidated many of his
assumptions and predictions. Capitalist ownership and control of production
have been separated. Joint stock companies forming most of the industrial
sector are now almost wholly operated by non-capital-owning managers.
Workers have not grown homogeneous but are divided and subdivided into
different skill groups. Class stability has been undercut by the development of a
large middle class and considerable social mobility. Rather than increasing
extremes of wealth and poverty, there has been a social leveling and an
increasing emphasis on social justice. And finally, bourgeois political power has
progressively weakened with growth in worker oriented legislation and of labor-
oriented parties, and with a narrowing of the rights and privileges of capital
ownership. Most important, the severest manifestation of conflict between
workers and capitalist--the strike--has been institutionalized through collective
bargaining legislation and the legalization of strikes.
These historical events and trends notwithstanding, the sociological outlines of
Marx's approach have much value. His emphasis on conflict, on classes, on their
relations to the state, and on social change was a powerful perspective that
should not be discarded. The spirit, if not the substance, of his theory is worth
developing.
Q) Explain the conflict theories in Coser and George Simmel.
Conflict can also be positive for the fabric of a society or social group. Well,
here is the conflict according to Luwis Coser, which states that conflict has a
positive function.
According to Coser’s perspective, conflict theory is a functional social system.
According to Coser, conflicts that occur in society do not merely show a
negative function. However, conflict can also have a positive impact on the
ongoing social order.
For Coser, conflict is a form of interaction and does not need to be denied.
Coser means that conflict does not have to be destructive or dysfunctional for
the system concerned. Because conflict can also have positive consequences.
Coser gives a picture to us, that conflict is a dispute about values or demands
regarding power, status, and sources of wealth whose supply is insufficient.
Furthermore, Coser stated that disputes or conflicts can take place between
individuals, collectivities or individuals with the group. We can see the conflict
between individuals and individuals, we still remember that when we attended
high school we unconsciously created positive conflicts, namely at the level of
competition, in competition events, competing to become class winners, and
experiencing positive conflict. we’ve been through.
In negative conflicts, we can see the final results of the competition where the
results are not in line with expectations, such as fights between football
supporters / football fans, coachmen debates that do not teach us lessons, as
well as examples of negative conflicts that can harm many communities.
Therefore, we should avoid these negative conflicts.
Conflict is an important element of interaction and it cannot be said that conflict
is always bad or divisive and destructive. Conflict can contribute a lot to the
sustainability of the group and unite / strengthen relationships between its
members. Such as facing a common enemy can integrate people, generate
solidarity and engagement, and make people forget their own internal strife.
Positive Function of Conflict According to Lewis Coser. Conflict is a way or
tool to maintain, unite and reinforce the existing social system. For example, the
positive function of conflict is in matters relating to the dynamics of the
relationship between the in group and the out group. Here are some propositions
made by Lewis Coser:
1) First, the strength of internal solidarity and inner group integration will
increase if the level of hostility or conflict with outside groups increases.
 2) Second, the increased integrity of groups involved in conflict can help
strengthen boundaries between that group and other groups in the
environment, especially groups that are hostile or potentially hostile.
3) Third, within the group there is the possibility of a reduced tolerance for
division or divisions, and an increased emphasis on consensus and
conformity.
a. Consensus is a phrase to produce or make an agreement that is
mutually agreed upon between groups or individuals after debates
and research are carried out in the intelligence collective to obtain
consensus decision making.
b. Conformity is a type of social influence when someone changes
their attitudes and behavior to suit existing social norms.
4) Fourth, deviants in the group are no longer tolerated, if they cannot be
persuaded to enter the right path, they may be expelled or put under close
surveillance.
5) Fifth, on the other hand, if the group is not threatened by conflict with
hostile outsiders, the strong pressure on cohesiveness, conformity, and
commitment to the group may decrease.
Internal disagreements may surface and be discussed, and deviants may be more
tolerated. Generally, individuals will get greater space to pursue their personal
interests.
According to Coser, the function of external conflict can also be to strengthen
internal cohesiveness and increase group morale, so that groups can provoke
antoganism with outside groups or create enemies with outsiders in order to
maintain or increase internal solidarity.
Tensions that occur in a group due to friction that make the conflict occur. To
be able to solve the conflict problems that occur, Lewis Coser has a way or
mechanism to be able to reduce or resolve a conflict.

The mechanism that Coser mentioned is called a safety valve or other

designation a safety valve. Coser admits that conflict can jeopardize unity.
Therefore, it is necessary to have a solution, which is called Coser as a safety
valve.
For Coser, this safety valve is an institution (safety valve institution). In the
broad order of elements of society, we will find many social interests that may
not be fulfilled quickly. There needs to be an institution or institution that
becomes the safety valve of these interests, so that there will be no conflict in
the community.
Study of Religious Conflicts and Simmel’s Notion of Conflict
Conflict is regarded as state of disharmony or disagreement between two or
more oppositions which can arise in any social institution, religion inclusive.
Hence, religious conflict, according to Gotan (2004) is a conceived interaction
in which two or more religious adherents engage in mutually opposing action
and use coercive behaviour to destroy, injure, thwart or otherwise control their
opponents. Simply put, religious conflict is a situation in which religious
adherents are involved in a serious disagreement or argument with one religious
group and another. This is a situation in which there are oppositions in ideas,
opinions, feelings and wishes.
All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief that followers must
accept without question. This can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face
of other beliefs. Therefore, conflict can arise over whose interpretation is the
correct one, a conflict that ultimately cannot be solved because there is no
judge. However, those followers must also be motivated to action. Although,
almost invariably, the majority adherents of any faith hold moderate views, they
are often more complacent, whereas extremists are motivated to bring their
interpretation of God's will to fruition, whether it leads to conflict or not is least
of their concern. Little (1996) argues that some religious groups consider
violence a point of duty, paying less attention to the consequences of their
actions. Ironically, conflict, be it religious or otherwise, is a very necessary tool
whereby coexistence could be possible in any society.
Georg Simmel’s works on religion as a fundamental process in human life laid
the foundation for this discourse, especially as it concerns religious conflict and
his reflections on religion and its relation to modernity, personality, art,
sociology, psychology, philosophy, and science. The characteristic doctrines of
his thought as applied to religion, based on phenomenological analysis of
human experience that emphasizes the subjective dimensions of life cannot be
neglected, when discussing issues like conflict. Simmel (1955) did a lot of
remarkable works on conflict in society. Though his reasoning often appears
complicated, yet, it is quite profound. He supported the view that there is no
society or institution without conflict and the idea that there must be conflict in
order to reach unity or change is something that is a timeless concept as well.
He viewed conflict as the opposition of one individual element in the same
association to another which is by no means a merely negative social factor, but
in many ways the only means through which coexistence with individuals
intolerable in themselves could be possible. Hence, opposition, for him, is an
integrating component of the relationship itself. Although he concentrated more
on conflict in the society, such ideas can also be applied to religious conflict,
since religion is one of the major social institutions. He was one of the first to
study conflict as a social phenomenon.
As a social phenomenon, conflict may range from the use of physical force to
litigation to intimidation through threat of physical harm. The aim of conflict, as
well as the aim of competition is to win and by any means necessary. However,
depending on the level of force used, the result may be the actual destruction of
adversaries. Using the major conflicts witnessed in the northern part of Nigeria
as an example, it is very obvious that the outcome is not far from destruction of
adversaries.
Georg Simmel’s research on social interactions revealed that the number of
participants in the interaction is key in determining the nature of that
interaction. He described the interactions within a “dyad”, with two participants,
a “triad” of three participants, and the differences between interactions within
small and large groups of participants. Here, he was able to point out that as
long as there is an interaction between two or more individuals, conflict is
unavoidable.
He argued that conflict is inseparable from social interaction and often used the
word “sociation” which refers to the pattern or form that a particular social
interaction assumes. That is, a mode or process of social interaction, whether
associative or dissociative, positive or negative. For example, the smallest social
phenomenon takes place between two individuals, to the bigger social
institution like religion, the level of sociation intensifies. That is, the more
frequent the interaction, the more occasions for hostile interaction. However,
frequent occasions for conflict do not necessarily result in frequent conflicts.
This is because the closeness of relationship and the strong mutual attachment
may induce parties to avoid conflict. As stated previously, when conflict does
occur, it is likely to be intense.
However, conflict has the potential to re-establish unity. Much depends on the
issues that are at stake in conflict and the type of social structure in which
conflict occurs. In religion, such struggle over dogmatic supremacy,
indoctrination, quest for political relevance and so on may sometimes determine
if the end point of the conflict will turn out positively or not. There is a
distinction to be made between conflicts over basic matters of principle and
conflicts over less central issues. In so far as conflict resolves tension between
antagonists. it can serve to integrate relationships. However, conflict tends to
serve this positive function only when it concerns interests or values that do not
contradict the basic assumptions upon which the relation is founded.
Unfortunately, the Nigeria’s major religious conflicts between Christianity and
Islam have not always turned out good. The same could be said about intra-
religious interactions which may turn out bad and lead to the breaking off of a
new sect from the main body. The number of Christian sects all stemming from
a single source attests to the frequency of such conflict (Coleman, 1956).
Simmel always took a logical and dualistic approach, bringing out the dynamic
interconnectedness and the conflicts between the social units he analyzed. To
Simmel, sociation always involves harmony and conflict, attraction and
repulsion, love and hatred. It is always the result of both categories of
interaction; both are positive ingredients, structuring all relationships and giving
them enduring form.
Q) Explain the historical roots of Feminism
It is common to speak of three phases of modern feminism; however, there is
little consensus as to how to characterize these three waves or what to do with
women's movements before the late nineteenth century. Making the landscape
even harder to navigate, a new silhouette is emerging on the horizon and taking
the shape of a fourth wave of feminism.
Some thinkers have sought to locate the roots of feminism in ancient Greece
with Sappho or the medieval world with Hildegard of Bingen or Christine de
Pisan. Certainly Olympes de Gouge, Mary Wollstonecraft and Jane Austen are
foremothers of the modern women's movement. All of these people advocated
for the dignity, intelligence, and basic human potential of the female sex.
However, it was not until the late nineteenth century that the efforts for women's
equal rights coalesced into a clearly identifiable and self-conscious movement,
or rather a series of movements.
The first wave of feminism took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, emerging out of an environment of urban industrialism and liberal,
socialist politics. The goal of this wave was to open up opportunities for
women, with a focus on suffrage. The wave formally began at the Seneca Falls
Convention in 1848 when three hundred men and women rallied to the cause of
equality for women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the Seneca Falls
Declaration outlining the new movement's ideology and political strategies.
In its early stages, feminism was interrelated with the temperance and
abolitionist movements and gave voice to now-famous activists like the
African-American Sojourner Truth, who demanded: "Ain't I a woman?"
Victorian America saw women acting in very "un-ladylike" ways (public
speaking, demonstrating, stints in jail), which challenged the "cult of
domesticity." Discussions about the vote and women's participation in politics
led to an examination of the differences between men and women as they were
then viewed. Some claimed that women were morally superior to men, and so
their presence in the civic sphere would improve public behavior and the
political process.
The second wave began in the 1960s and continued into the 90s. This wave
unfolded in the context of the anti-war and civil rights movements and the
growing self-consciousness of a variety of minority groups around the world.
The New Left was on the rise, and the voice of the second wave was
increasingly radical. In this phase, sexuality and reproductive rights were
dominant issues, and much of the movement's energy was focused on passing
the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing social equality
regardless of sex.
This phase began with protests against the Miss America pageant in Atlantic
City in 1968 and 1969. Feminists parodied what they held to be a degrading
"cattle parade" that reduced women to objects of beauty dominated by a
patriarchy that sought to keep them in the home or in dull, low-paying jobs. The
radical New York group called the Redstockings staged a counter pageant in
which they crowned a sheep as Miss America and threw "oppressive" feminine
artifacts such as bras, girdles, high-heels, makeup and false eyelashes into the
trashcan.
Because the second wave of feminism found voice amid so many other social
movements, it was easily marginalized and viewed as less pressing than, for
example, Black Power or efforts to end the war in Vietnam. Feminists reacted
by forming women-only organizations (such as NOW) and "consciousness
raising" groups. In publications like "The BITCH Manifesto" and "Sisterhood is
Powerful," feminists advocated for their place in the sun. The second wave was
increasingly theoretical, based on a fusion of neo-Marxism and psycho-
analytical theory, and began to associate the subjugation of women with broader
critiques of patriarchy, capitalism, normative heterosexuality, and the woman's
role as wife and mother. Sex and gender were differentiated—the former being
biological, and the later a social construct that varies culture-to-culture and over
time.
Whereas the first wave of feminism was generally propelled by middle class,
Western, cisgender, white women, the second phase drew in women of color
and developing nations, seeking sisterhood and solidarity, claiming "Women's
struggle is class struggle." Feminists spoke of women as a social class and
coined phrases such as "the personal is political" and "identity politics" in an
effort to demonstrate that race, class, and gender oppression are all related.
They initiated a concentrated effort to rid society top-to-bottom of sexism, from
children's cartoons to the highest levels of government.
One of the strains of this complex and diverse "wave" was the development of
women-only spaces and the notion that women working together create a
special dynamic that is not possible in mixed-groups, which would ultimately
work for the betterment of the entire planet. Women, due whether to their long
"subjugation" or to their biology, were thought by some to be more humane,
collaborative, inclusive, peaceful, nurturing, democratic, and holistic in their
approach to problem solving than men. The term eco-feminism was coined to
capture the sense that because of their biological connection to earth and lunar
cycles, women were natural advocates of environmentalism.
The third wave of feminism began in the mid-90's and was informed by post-
colonial and post-modern thinking. In this phase many constructs were
destabilized, including the notions of "universal womanhood," body, gender,
sexuality and heteronormativity. An aspect of third wave feminism that
mystified the mothers of the earlier feminist movement was the readoption by
young feminists of the very lip-stick, high-heels, and cleavage proudly exposed
by low cut necklines that the first two phases of the movement identified with
male oppression. Pinkfloor expressed this new position when she said that it's
possible to have a push-up bra and a brain at the same time.
The "girls" of the third wave stepped onto the stage as strong and empowered,
eschewing victimization and defining feminine beauty for themselves as
subjects, not as objects of a sexist patriarchy. They developed a rhetoric of
mimicry, which appropriated derogatory terms like "slut" and "bitch" in order to
subvert sexist culture and deprive it of verbal weapons. The web is an important
tool of "girlie feminism." E-zines have provided "cybergrrls" and "netgrrls"
another kind of women-only space. At the same time — rife with the irony of
third-wave feminism because cyberspace is disembodied — it permits all users
the opportunity to cross gender boundaries, and so the very notion of gender has
been unbalanced in a way that encourages experimentation and creative
thought.
This is in keeping with the third wave's celebration of ambiguity and refusal to
think in terms of "us-them." Most third-wavers refuse to identify as "feminists"
and reject the word that they find limiting and exclusionary. Grrl-feminism
tends to be global, multi-cultural, and it shuns simple answers or artificial
categories of identity, gender, and sexuality. Its transversal politics means that
differences such as those of ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc. are
celebrated and recognized as dynamic, situational, and provisional. Reality is
conceived not so much in terms of fixed structures and power relations, but in
terms of performance within contingencies. Third wave feminism breaks
boundaries.
The fourth wave of feminism is still a captivating silhouette. A writer for Elle
Magazine recently interviewed me about the waves of feminism and asked if the
second and third waves may have “failed or dialed down” because the social
and economic gains had been mostly sparkle, little substance, and whether at
some point women substituted equal rights for career and the atomic self. I
replied that the second wave of feminism ought not be characterized as having
failed, nor was glitter all that it generated. Quite the contrary; many goals of the
second wave were met: more women in positions of leadership in higher
education, business and politics; abortion rights; access to the pill that increased
women’s control over their bodies; more expression and acceptance of female
sexuality; general public awareness of the concept of and need for the “rights of
women” (though never fully achieved); a solid academic field in feminism,
gender and sexuality studies; greater access to education; organizations and
legislation for the protection of battered women; women’s support groups and
organizations (like NOW and AAUW); an industry in the publication of books
by and about women/feminism; public forums for the discussion of women’s
rights; and a societal discourse at the popular level about women’s suppression,
efforts for reform, and a critique of patriarchy. So, in a sense, if the second
wave seemed to have “dialed down,” the lull was in many ways due more to the
success of the movement than to any ineffectiveness. In addition to the sense
that many women’s needs had been met, feminism’s perceived silence in the
1990s was a response to the successful backlash campaign by the conservative
press and media, especially against the word feminism and its purported
association with male-bashing and extremism.
However, the second wave only quieted down in the public forum; it did not
disappear but retreated into the academic world where it is alive and well—
incubating in the academy. Women’s centers and women’s/gender studies have
became a staple of virtually all universities and most colleges in the US and
Canada (and in many other nations around the word). Scholarship on women’s
studies, feminist studies, masculinity studies, and queer studies is prolific,
institutionalized, and thriving in virtually all scholarly fields, including the
sciences. Academic majors and minors in women’s, feminist, masculinity and
queer studies have produced thousands of students with degrees in the subjects.
However, generally those programs have generated theorists rather than
activists.
Returning to the question the Elle Magazine columnist asked about the third
wave and the success or failure of its goals. It is hard to talk about the aims of
the third wave because a characteristic of that wave is the rejection of
communal, standardized objectives. The third wave does not acknowledge a
collective “movement” and does not define itself as a group with common
grievances. Third wave women and men are concerned about equal rights, but
tend to think the genders have achieved parity or that society is well on its way
to delivering it to them. The third wave pushed back against their “mothers”
(with grudging gratitude) the way children push away from their parents in
order to achieve much needed independence. This wave supports equal rights,
but does not have a term like feminism to articulate that notion. For third
wavers, struggles are more individual: “We don’t need feminism anymore.”
But the times are changing, and a fourth wave is in the air. A few months ago, a
high school student approached one of the staff of the Center for Gender Equity
at Pacific University and revealed in a somewhat confessional tone, “I think I’m
a feminist!” It was like she was coming out of the closet. Well, perhaps that is
the way to view the fourth wave of feminism.
The aims of the second feminist movement were never cemented to the extent
that they could survive the complacency of third wavers. The fourth wave of
feminism is emerging because (mostly) young women and men realize that the
third wave is either overly optimistic or hampered by blinders. Feminism is now
moving from the academy and back into the realm of public discourse. Issues
that were central to the earliest phases of the women’s movement are receiving
national and international attention by mainstream press and politicians:
problems like sexual abuse, rape, violence against women, unequal pay, slut-
shaming, the pressure on women to conform to a single and unrealistic body-
type and the realization that gains in female representation in politics and
business, for example, are very slight. It is no longer considered “extreme,” nor
is it considered the purview of rarified intellectuals to talk about societal abuse
of women, rape on college campus, Title IX, homo and transphobia, unfair pay
and work conditions, and the fact that the US has one of the worst records for
legally-mandated parental leave and maternity benefits in the world.
Some people who wish to ride this new fourth wave have trouble with the word
“feminism,” not just because of its older connotations of radicalism, but because
the word feels like it is underpinned by assumptions of a gender binary and an
exclusionary subtext: “for women only.” Many fourth wavers who are
completely on-board with the movement’s tenants find the term “feminism”
sticking in their craws and worry that it is hard to get their message out with a
label that raises hackles for a broader audience. Yet the word is winning the
day. The generation now coming of age sees that we face serious problems
because of the way society genders and is gendered, and we need a strong “in-
your-face” word to combat those problems. Feminism no longer just refers to
the struggles of women; it is a clarion call for gender equity.
The emerging fourth wavers are not just reincarnations of their second wave
grandmothers; they bring to the discussion important perspectives taught by
third wave feminism. They speak in terms of intersectionality whereby
women’s suppression can only fully be understood in a context of the
marginalization of other groups and genders—feminism is part of a larger
consciousness of oppression along with racism, ageism, classism, abelism, and
sexual orientation (no “ism” to go with that). Among the third wave’s bequests
is the importance of inclusion, an acceptance of the sexualized human body as
non-threatening, and the role the internet can play in gender-bending and
leveling hierarchies. Part of the reason a fourth wave can emerge is because
these millennials’ articulation of themselves as “feminists” is their own: not a
hand-me-down from grandma. The beauty of the fourth wave is that there is a
place in it for all –together. The academic and theoretical apparatus is extensive
and well-honed in the academy, ready to support a new broad-based activism in
the home, in the workplace, in the sphere of social media, and in the streets.
At this point we are still not sure how feminism will mutate. Will the fourth
wave fully materialize and in what direction? There have always been many
feminisms in the movement, not just one ideology, and there have always been
tensions, points and counter-points. The political, social and intellectual
feminist movements have always been chaotic, multivalenced, and
disconcerting; and let's hope they continue to be so; it's a sign that they are
thriving.
Q) Marxist Feminism.
Q) Explain the woman empowerment in lndia
Q) Eco-Feminism.
Q) Explain the Globalization and post modern theory
Globalization is the process by which there has been integrated across the globe
of the economy as well as the culture and political organizations. It is mainly
the process of opening up of the market of one country to the global market, or
the markets or the other countries. This helps in interconnecting various nations
across the world and making the world a global village. Globalization was
introduced in India in 1992.
The sociology of globalization focuses its attention to the study of the changes
and the consequences that have been brought about in the country as a result of
this globalization. It studies the changing labor relations, economic exchange,
the changing political scenario with the integration of the world economies,
moreover, they focus their study on the changes in the cultural aspects of the
society. in order to do this, they give their attention to economic globalization,
political globalization, and cultural globalization.
The first and the foremost reason for the changes in country through
globalization was the opening up of the economies to the wider world economy.
This is what is known as economic globalization, such globalization has grown
and expanded across the world as a result of the transnational/international
trade, which is the movement of goods, capital, and services across the borders.
There has been a growth of telecommunication and communication services,
along with the growth in technology, which has made the expansion of
globalization easier. The World trade organization plays an important role in
opening up trade for various countries. The developed countries help the
developing countries in doing business by providing them investment known as
the foreign direct investment. Globalization has also created an opportunity for
people to work outside their country and bring foreign capital, this has been
possible due to the creation of jobs abroad. Moreover, globalization has led to
an overall increase in the economic growth of various developing countries.
However economic globalization also has its setbacks, such as the increased
dependence on the developed countries that are providing capital to the
developing countries, further, a setback in the economy of one country can have
an impact on others as these are now all integrated.
Another important aspect is the political globalization, this means that there is a
worldwide political system wherein the various countries provide one another
political or financial support and may form alliances. Such practices are seen
being done in the United Nations forum, where all the countries from around the
world come together to be a part of, here collectively, they take part in decision
making for the welfare of the people of the world, e.g. in the recent
disagreements, between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir in early 2019 it
was the chief who had called on both the countries to reduce the tensions.
Moreover, due to globalization, there has been a growth in the International
Non-Governmental Organizations such as the SOS children’s village, which is
based out of Austria.
Cultural globalization refers to the adoption of various cultures from around the
world the exchange of ideas, values, etc. This has happened as a result of
globalization as now we access t things available in another’s culture, and we
can purchase them and at the same time, we see cultures that may seem
attractive to us. This may also lead to the loss of one’s own culture.
Postmodern social theory has come to reality. It has begun to take roots. Some
think that it is the declaration of the death of sociological theory. Others argue
that it is an appropriate moment for sociological theory to transform itself by
accepting some criticisms made by postmodern social theory.
Sociological theory and social theory are not and should not be at different
poles. Postmodern social theory surely is not the result of the contributions of
many non-sociologist thinkers only; it is also a product of sociologist thinkers.
In fact, social theory is differentiated from sociological theory for its being
interdisciplinary.
But it also means that social theory can also be looked from the sociological
vantage point. There is yet another perspective. Scholars like George Ritzer
consider social theory not only from sociological perspective but from the
perspective of modernity.
Thus, postmodern social theory includes perspectives of sociological theory,
non-sociological perspectives such as literary criticism, anthropology and so on
and modernist perspective. Ritzer seems to be liberal for looking at and
analyzing postmodern social theory from the vantage point of modernism.
The most radical postmodernists disregard the views of Ritzer. They have
proclaimed the death of modernity. And, not only of modernity but the
discipline of sociology also. These are extreme positions: appropriation of
modernist and sociological perspectives by postmodern social theory and denial
of the existence of modernity and sociology.
There is an alternative way between these extremes. All good postmodernists –
radical or modern – have created perspectives, ideas and concepts that deserve,
nay, need a hearing in sociology. Sociological theory may, in many ways, be
quite vibrant, but it seems to lack a plethora of new ideas.
What postmodern social theory offers is a storehouse full of such ideas. Some
will not prove very useful but many will be of great interest and utility to
sociologists. In any case, the infusion of so many ideas cannot help invigorate
sociology and sociological theory.
In any description and analysis of postmodern social theory, one is obliged to
see it with reference to sociological theory and modernity. There are
postmodernists who are liberal and look to post-modernity only in the
perspective of modernity. Among these are included Giddens and Habermas.
At the outset, it should be stated that the postmodern social theorists do not
apply any rigid framework for constructing a theory. The criteria laid down for
theory formation by sociological theorists are at once abandoned by
postmodernists.
There is no statement of problem, concepts, variables or theoretical statements
as are given in meta-theoretical schemes. Each theoretician has certain ideas
about society and he throws them up by contributing towards the understanding
of contemporary society. As a result of this, we do not have any coherent theory
about postmodern society. There is no depth and essence in these theories.
Nor any universality is seen in them. The theories are characterized by
fragmentation, difference and plurality. And, then, there are postmodernists who
even go to the extent of saying that, in the words of Best and Kellner,
“postmodern critiques are directed against the notion of ‘theory’ itself … a
systematically developed conceptual structure anchored in the real. That is,
there is opposition to the idea that to be considered a theory, a body of
systematic ideas must somehow model or represent reality”.
George Ritzer is also of the opinion that it is not necessary to follow the rigid
norms of theorizing. What is important is to understand what we call social or
what we mean by social. Ritzer writes:
However, in my view, bodies of ideas do not need to be either systematic or
representations of the real to qualify as theories. While postmodernists may
reject theory, what most of them in fact do is to theorize, often about the social.
Perhaps they are haphazard at times, but the fact is that these are, at least in part,
social theories, and they are relevant to the concerns of sociological theories.
There are sociologists, and there is no dearth of them in India, who in
categorical terms deny the status of any theory to post-modernity. Such a denial
does not block the progressive way of post-modernity. It must be admitted that
for the development of sociology, the iron case of sociological framework and
boundary has to be shattered. And, Ritzer is very right that any theorizing about
the social is relevant for the analysis of society.
Whom do we include for building the postmodern social theory? There are
dilemmas. There are postmodernists who deny to label themselves as such; and
there are modernists who can be labelled as postmodernists; and there are others
who are uncomfortable to any such label of modernist or postmodernist.
Despite the absence of any specific identity, what seems to be a safer way is to
pick up some important or dominant postmodernists from France and America.
France is considered to be the cradle of post-modernity and post-structuralism.
Next to it is America. Postmodernists, who have influenced sociological theory
and modernity, have therefore been taken up by us for their social theory.
Q) Explain the Jacques Derrida post modern theory
Jacques Derrida was not a sociologist. And, at the same time, postmodernity is
not a theme of traditional sociology. It is interdisciplinary and its contributors
include a variety of social scientists. It also includes disciplines like philosophy,
linguistics and humanities. His prose is largely concluded in linguistic
structuralism and philosophy. Derrida, as a postmodern thinker, has created a
science of writing which he calls ‘grammatology’. While he thinks of
grammatology as a science (in order to distinguish it from historical studies of
writing), it is clearly not a positivistic science. In fact, grammatology is a type
of knowledge rather than a science.
Derrida is a French thinker who is heavily influenced by the movement of
structuralism, which swayed the whole of Europe. Before entering of Derrida in
the arena of postmodernity, the postmodern thinkers such as Baudrillard and
Lyotard waged a war against the founding fathers of sociology and their
foundational- universalistic theories. There was a whole-hearted condemnation
of grand theories and metanarratives. Derrida gave a new turn to postmodernity
and, then, there came post-structuralism. In a long series of extremely
demounting books published since the middles of 1960s, Derrida has developed
his own particular poststructuralist blend of philosophy, linguistics and literary
analysis. It goes by the name of deconstruction. In our day-to-day life we talk
about so many things. When a shocking crime takes place, we often link it with
the politicians of our region. Crime has been politicized. And, then, we often
talk about the corruption, which has plagued our bureaucracy.
The first postmodern perspective is that it does not put emphasis on progress,
totality and necessity but on the very opposite of these intellectual emphases,
namely, discontinuity, plurality and contingency. Postmodernity in this vein is
more ‘deconstructive’ style of reasoning and enquiry, offering itself as a
stimulant to dialogue and to conversation among human beings without the
universaling pretensions of enlightenment philosophies.
People, it is hoped, will be able to talk to one another and, in the process
playing vocabularies and cultures off against each other, produce new and better
ways of acting on problems of the world. The idiom of postmodernity therefore
is:
 Discontinuity,
 Plurality,
 Fragmentation
 Rejection of progress, and
 Totality.
The second perspective concerns structuralism and, therefore, post-
structuralism. The poststructuralists attack on the notion that there might be a
metanarrative, meta-language through which all things can be connected,
represented or explained. Postmodernists have a different view of language
compared to modernists.
The modernists presupposed a tight and identifiable relation between what was
said (the signified or message) and how it was being said (the signifier or
medium). The postmodernists see these as continually breaking apart and
reattaching in new combinations.
Q) Mc Donaldization.
Q) Modern social theories.