Sociology

In the article “The Code of the Street” by Elijah Anderson, he allows a glimpse of everyday life through the eyes of two completely different worlds wrapped up within one universe. He compares street families to what he refers to as “decent families”. Although the meaning can take on different perceptions to the eye of the beholder, the author described it as a code of civility at one end of conduct regulated by the threat of violence.

Within these most economically drugged, crime-related, and depressing neighborhoods, the rules of civil action have been severely weakened, and their stead of survival known as this “code of the street” often holds many their key to survival. The book Essentials of sociology gives four different theories on why crime exists, they are the functionalist theory, the internationalist theory, conflict theory, and control theory. The theory I believe best relates to Andersons article is the internationalist theory.

The author presented only two groups of people which categorized their existence within the social contest among individuals and families of the neighborhood, the “decent” and the “street. ” I thought that they were kind of broad terms and that maybe they shouldn’t necessarily be “categorized” but they should be more of a description of people. Because there can be many “decent” people and they can still know the street. The internationalist theory basically implies that crime is learned from the things you observe in life and your interactions with people around you.

The first place Anderson says people in impoverished areas learn crime is at a young age from the family. Children are always influence by their parents and Anderson says “those street oriented adults with whom children come in contact with including mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, boyfriends, cousins, neighbors, and friends-help them in forming this understanding by verbalizing the messages they are getting through experience: “watch your back. ” “Protect yourself. ” “Don’t punk out. ” “If someone messes with you got to pay them back. ”

“If someone dishes you got to straighten them out.” many parents actually impose sanctions if a child is not sufficiently aggressive. ” This shows that children can even be punished for not being aggressive enough, so they will have a tendency to be more violent and commit more crime Street families are overwhelmed with the demands of parenting which means kids to have to be able to take care of themselves more which leads to a dependence on the code of the streets and Anderson says” families, who are more fully invested in the code of the streets than the decent people are, may aggressively socialize their children into it.”

This means children are taught to be aggressive from a young age so they can better take care of themselves and survive in their environment. Another example Anderson gives of children growing up around violence in poorer areas is many parents have financial problems caused by drug use which causes more violence and exposes the child to more crime. Another place Anderson says children are exposed to crime is in the streets. He says, “Realities of inner city life are largely absorbed on the streets.”

One reason Anderson says children gravitate towards being in the streets is a lack of supervision at home or a home environment not fit for children. He notes that the children who hang out in the street are allowed to “rip and run up and down the street” which shows that from a young age these children are being taught they can do anything they want, and in poorer areas it only takes a matter of time before they start getting involved in crime.

Also many kids may not be looking to commit any crimes but because they hang-out in the street they are perceived as criminals, and the eventually except the label and actually start committing crime. This concept is known as the labeling theory. It shows that it is not the act of being in the street that causes crime it is the way people react to people being in the streets that cause them to commit crimes. Another aspect of life children in poorer areas observe and emulate is respect and reputation.

When you don’t have many physical possession ones reputation is seen as all that one has. Anderson talks about how from a young age that a child “ to maintain his honor he must show he is not someone to be “messed with” or “diced” the article also talks about how in urban societies “it is a basic requirement to show a certain disposition to violence” meaning in order to keep up with you reputation you must show that you can be violent and commit crime, and if this is the way the majority of people living in these areas think there is no wonder there is so much crime.

The last reason Anderson gives that I believe gives children the impression they must commit crimes if they live in poor areas is the areas they live in themselves. They are poorer areas so living is already a struggle, and kids see that crime is an easy way to get a lot for a little; they can rob someone in two seconds and have money to eat with. An example Anderson gives of this state of mind is “a boy wearing a fashionable, expensive jacket, for example is vulnerable to attack by another who covets the jacket, and either can’t afford to buy one or wants the added satisfaction of depriving someone else.”

Anderson also mentions how sometimes in these neighborhoods police won’t even show p and when kids see that there neighborhood is too dangerous for police it is easier to say I will become a part of it instead of becoming a victim. In conclusion I believe that the internationalist theory best describes Andersons article “The Code of the Streets” and like it says in the book deviance is learned through interaction with others. Crime in particular is learned through experiences growing up at home, hanging out in the streets, trying to gain reputation, and experiences and interaction with where you live and the community you live in.

The poverty cycle is also termed as the behavior pattern of situations that cannot easily be altered and when referring to a given country it is called the “development trap” (Oster, Lake, & Gene, 1978) . This cycle is defined as the set of events or factors which once commenced, have no possibility of stopping unless there is intervention from external causing their subsequent generations to equally be impoverished. It is a phenomenon in which poor families end up being trapped in poverty for a period exceeding two and a half generations.

The main cause for such families to be in this situation is the limitation to and lack of resources such as connections, financial capital, training and education. Under normal circumstances it is virtually impossible for any individual to break this cycle meaning that the poor people will for a long time remain poor. This is because many poverty cycles overlap and perpetuate other cycles causing any attempt to break this cycle to be unrealistic. This situation is mostly found in shanty towns and inner city areas.

Poverty refers to the state of material deprivation having either little or no goods, money and means of support. It is a condition in which an individual stays poor such that they experience deficiency their desired needs. Poverty is usually measured by the availability of infrastructure services, like sanitation and safe water. Poverty has been classified into two broad categories which are the situational poverty and generational poverty (Oster, Lake, & Gene, 1978). With this in mind this paper centers on what individuals are doing in order to break the cycle of poverty.

This is with respect to the sociological imagination and the three major social theories of symbolic interaction, conflict and structural functionalism. In order to break the cycle of poverty, action needs to be put in place to deal with the root causes of poverty because the cycle of poverty is usually systemic in nature. This has been achieved via sociological imagination and social theories such as symbolic interaction, conflict together with structural functionalism as well.

Sociological imagination entails a mind set which allows individuals to visualize the relationship that exists between events that occur in their personal lives and events within the society. Wright Mills adds to this definition by putting it as the means of breaking the poverty cycle through taking part in activities that are shaped by the situations that people find themselves in (Mills, 2000). Symbolic interactionism is one of the leading social psychological theories that focus on the ways through which meanings emerge from social interactions between places and individuals.

Its prime concern has been to analyze the meanings of life events by way of intimate familiarity and close observational work. It equally gives strong emphasis on the role of symbols through language, gestures and signs as the core elements of these interactions (Reynolds & Herman-Kinney, 2003). From the sociological perspective, the conflict theory involves perspectives that emphasize on political, social and material inequality of a given society. This Marxist-based social theory argues that groups and individuals of different social classes vary in amounts of non-material and material resources.

The social conflict theory states that groups within a capitalist society interact destructively in such a way that there is little cooperation and no mutual benefit. According to Weber, the major class division is between those who do not and those who own the forces of production in the following classes, the propertied upper class, the property less white collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie and the manual working class (Agger, 1991). Structural functionalism is a theory which states that the function of a cultural trait, especially in an institution is the preservation and creation of social order.

It addresses the social structure with respect to the function of the constituent elements such as the institutions, norms, customs and traditions. It also studies society as a structure with interrelated parts that work toward its proper functioning. In the society it is the positions that individuals occupy which are ranked, not the individuals (O’Neill, 1995). With respect to an Ontarion initiative to break the poverty cycle, studies on this initiative gave a head way to efforts that are being employed by people within the government, donor organizations, companies, individual families and communities to break the poverty cycle.

According to the Ontario child support, education was used as the best way to break this cycle, through the enhancement of programs for at-risk kids in school. It offers support to more recreation programs for neighbor-hoods with high-needs. Further on education, this initiative provides support for parents in ensuring their children go to school particularly the low-income families (Ontario. ca, 2010). The initiative also builds stronger communities because safety is considered one of the best ways to aid low-income families to enjoy better life.

This has been done through investing in a fund which gives the local leaders funds for the establishment of community revitalization projects. It also avails summer jobs programs to give the children in priority neighbor-hoods valuable work experience. The initiative has also stabilized funding for the Provincial Rent Bank Program to aid persons facing possible eviction. The Ontario child support has also visualized a smarter government in such a way that they get the most for each dollar spent in support of low-income families.

This is through a review of social assistance by increasing opportunity and removing barriers for people trying to move from social assistance into employment. In addition to this a Social Policy Institute focusing on evaluation and evidence-based social is being developed (Ontario. ca, 2010). Other efforts made by individuals to break the poverty cycle includes self employment, where they get full benefits of the work they are doing in terms of reward which is mostly evident in the developing countries.

People learn basic skills and end up being in a better position to support their families. Individuals have opened up to acquiring incomes that depend on the environment especially in Senegal and Dakar, where waste picker on the Mbeubeuss landfill site make a living by recycling materials. In Kampala, widows feed their families through urban gardening and rental income. Another initiative to break the poverty cycle is by The Sea to Sea partners who partake in self employment by teaching farmers new agriculture techniques (Dale, 2008).

In an effort to break poverty cycles, policy-makers and companies ensure that the acquisition of assets such as land by poor communities is made easy through grants and other aids. Such assets are then developed to a level where they generate income and improve the lives of communities involved. Governments on the same note have resorted to promotion of equitable pay for all employees regardless of their social status through implementing policies. Other support agencies like the Sea to Sea works within communities and families to set up micro-credit loans to enable them acquire assets (Christian-Reformed-Church, 2010).

Further efforts in breaking the poverty cycle include the cancellation or reduction of the national debt especially for the world’s poorest countries so that the nations’ economies of these countries experience some positive turn. Additionally, in a country like New York, according to an article by Frederique Krupa, a ten-year plan was started by the Koch Administration, intended to avail the New York City renovated apartment units because the city at the time was thriving and by so doing the city would be able to avoid the numerous lawsuits from powerful community groups.

This is another way used to break the poverty cycle by curbing on oppression of the poor by the rich (Krupa, 1991). Social activists have also made an effort in breaking this cycle by focusing on anti-discrimination laws especially in the work place so as to increase the opportunities given to poor minorities and poverty elimination. It is common knowledge that over the years the poor have continued to work in the low paying but tiring jobs. There are minor means that have been employed by individual families such as cost sharing between husbands and wives in the sense that they both go out strive to earn income for the family.

For wealthy individuals or any one who may have acquired capital, “provision of employment” by underpaying workers has enabled them break and stay away from poverty thus making more profits and continue to thrive on other people’s sweat. Some people strive to join politics so that they raise their status in society and earn more income by attaining high ranks within the government and society at large. If this cycle is left to persist, it may result to criminal activities like the selling of illegal drugs by the poor for survival. With these, there are numerous outcomes such as early death, addiction, breakup of families and shattered health.

Other consequences include increase in slums within a country and stress causing very poor health levels. It is therefore important that everyone contributes to the breaking of the poverty cycle. References: Agger, B. (1991). A critical theory of public life: knowledge, discourse, and politics in an age of decline. New York: Routledge. Christian-Reformed-Church. (2010). What is the Cycle of Poverty? Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www. crcna. org/pages/sea_cycleofpoverty. cfm Dale, S. (2008, September). Breaking the Cycle of Urban Poverty. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www. idrc. ca/en/ev-129440-201-1-DO_TOPIC.

Participant observation is where the researcher joins the group or community they are studying, the researcher will participate in the activities over a period of time, to do this, the researcher attempts to become accepted in order to collect more valid research and to try and see the world in the way the group does. There are two types of participant observation, Covert and Overt.

Covert participant observation is where the researcher will take an undercover role in order to do research into the group they wish to study, there is normally a ‘gate keeper’ within this group that knows the researcher is there to do research, the gate keeper helps get them into the group to do this research. Overt participant observation is where the researcher takes a more open role; they openly ask the group if they will allow the researcher to study them.

Interpretivists prefer participant observations as they argue that it’s the most effective way to understand the meanings people give on certain things, they also prefer it as there is a greater chance of developing their understanding further by verstehen. An advantage of covert participant observation could be that more valid research will be gained as they study is true to life when compared to overt research. With overt participant observation there can be a risk of less valid data due to the Hawthorne Effect; this is where the presence of the researcher can affect the way the participants behave.

With both covert and overt participant observations rapports can be made which may lead to more valid data and data that is normally hard to reach as the group that the researcher is studying will begin to trust them. However, this can take time and can be less practical. An example of this is Eileen Barker’s study on the Unification Church, she studied the ‘Moonie’s’ over 7 years, gaining the trust of the participants, who soon saw her as a friend, thus enabling her to gain more valid and truthful research.

By doing this, Barker gained verstehen meaning she could understand the feelings of the people she was studying, empathising with them; as a result she developed a further understanding of their way of life. Other practical issues with covert participant observation are that it can be hard to find a gate keeper to let the researcher into the group. Both covert and overt research are very time consuming and cost a lot, so the study must be worth the time of studying.

Both covert and overt observations can be low in reliability as they are hard to replicate and get consistent results. Researchers may remember and interpret things differently thus reducing the reliability of the research even further. This tends to be more of a disadvantage with covert research as they are unable to write down everything the group being studied says as it will risk their cover and could ruin the research.

With an overt role, this can be avoided as they are able to take notes in the open, and can use different types of methods such as interviews or questionnaires. Covert participant observation tends to be more unethical than overt participant observation as the researcher doesn’t ask the group for consent thus deceiving the group, the researcher may take part in illegal acts in order to maintain cover, an example of this is Patrick, he studied a gang in Glasgow over four months, during his time in the gang he was required to partake in burglaries to keep the trust of the gang.

To prevent this, researchers may want to take more of an overt role, which means they have an honest and open role within the group, meaning there is no deception and they won’t have to take part in illegal acts. Positivists don’t like participant observation as it’s hard for them to gather quantitative data, so they aren’t able to generalise or see patterns or trends.

When sociologists talk of social class, they refer to a group of individuals who occupy a similar position in the economic system of production. Within that system occupation is very important because it provides financial rewards, stability and benefits like healthcare.Social classes are very complex, but “the relationship between power and wealth is undeniable.” (Marger 40) People can change the social class they are in, but it is not simply one factor that determines one’s social class. Occupation, income, wealth, education, and status are all major factors that can help determine which of the five social classes a person belongs. An individual can change his or her social class if they have the desire to do so

Many sociologists suggest five:

Upper Class – Elite

Represent institutional leadership, heads of multinational corporations, foundations, universities Capitalist elite – owners of lands, stocks and bonds and other assets – wealth derived from what they own Forbes magazine publishes a list of the 400 wealthiest families in America. In 1997, net worth had to be at least $475 million.Bill Gates, in that year, had net worth pf 39.8 billion. Of all the wealth represented on the Forbes list, more than half is inherited. Newly acquired wealth, nouveau riche, have vast amounts of money but not often accepted into “old money” circles.

Upper Middle Class

Represent scientific and technical knowledge – engineers, accountants, lawyers, architects, university faculty, managers and directors of public and private organizations. Have both high incomes and high social prestige. Well-educated. Difficult to define a “middle class” (i.e. upper middle, middle middle and lower middle) probably the largest class group in the United States – because being middle class is more that just income, about lifestyles and resources, etc.

Lower Middle Class
Clerical-administrative
Provide support for professionals
Engage in data collection., record-keeping
Paralegals., bank tellers, sales
Blue-collar workers in skilled trades

Working Class
Craft workers
Laborers in factories
Restaurant workers
Nursing home staff
Repair shops, garages
Delivery services

Poor

Working poor – work full-time at wages below poverty line
Social services
Underclass

Social class is one of the most important concepts that sociologists discuss and yet its definition is often illusive. There are two classical sociologists who are most important in the discussions about class . have different views upon social class in contemporary societies. In Karl Marx’s perspective, social class has a two-class system whereas Max Weber argued that social class has three dimensions of stratification: class, status and party And what is frustrating about both is that they did not produce a viable definition of the things that they wrote extensively about.

Karl Marx: 1818-1883

Karl Marx argued there are two major social classes, the ruling class who own the means of production and the subject class, who don’t own the means of production and are a diverse group of people controlled by and working for the ruling class. These two groups are better known as the bourgeoisie and proletariat. In particular, the bourgeoisie use a mode of production, in the form of capitalism, to oppress the proletariat. Whereby the owners of production (bourgeoisie) use the (proletariat) workers labour to produce their surplus value. In turn they pay their workers the smallest amount possible to make a profit, thus exploiting the working class.

The defining factor in what makes them a separate class is the bourgeoisie’s ownership of the means of production, not their wealth, because they don’t produce the surplus value, the proletariat do. The bourgeoisie only appropriate the surplus. In essence the bourgeoisie are a ‘class for itself’ whereas the proletariat are a ‘class in itself’. Marx identifies that the reason we have classes is due to a group sharing a common interest and economic position. The bourgeoisie own the capital of land, machinery and raw materials. Whereas the proletariat own nothing, they can only sell their labour power in an attempt to survive and provide for their families. This in turn results in the social/power relations between the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Max Weber: 1864 – 1920

While Weber agrees with Marx’s theory of the class distinction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, he is more interested in the individual’s market value. For Weber, an individual’s class position is determined by their current market value. This market value is established by the individual’s level of education, natural talent, skills and acquired knowledge. With these skills the individual is opened to numerous life chances and opportunities to further their career and increase their standard of living. Their market value equals their economic gain. Market value is defined by their ability to market themselves to a particular job opportunity. For instance, a university degree makes an individual more marketable and as such they have greater chances to work in their preferred field. They are given greater financial rewards and in turn move up the social ladder.

Consequences of social class

Different consumptions of social goods is the most visible consequence of class. In modern societies it manifests as income, inequality, through the subsistence societies it manifested as malnutrition and periodic starvation. The conditions at work vary greatly depending on class. Those in the upper-middle class and middle class enjoy greater freedom in their occupations. They are generally more respected, enjoy more diversity and are able to exhibit some authority. Those in lower classes tend to feel more alienated and have lower work satisfaction overall. The physical conditions of the work place differ greatly between classes. While middle class workers may ” suffer alienating conditions” or ” lack of job satisfaction”, blue-collar workers suffer alienating , often routine, work with obvious physical health hazards, injury and even death.

In the more social sphere, class has direct consequences on lifestyle. Lifestyle includes tastes, preferences, and general style of living. These lifestyles could quite possibly affect education attainment, and therefore status attainment. Class lifestyle also affects how children are raised. For example, a working class person is more likely to raise their child to be a working class and middle class are more likely to be raised in middle- class. This perpetuates the idea of class for future generations.

Since social class is often self-reported, it is difficult to assure the accuracy of the information collected. Even if the data is accurate, social classes are not the same in each region or city. What constitutes upper class in one location may be middle class in another. The lack of consistency involved in researching social class accounts for the difficulty in using it as a reliable variable. Schools and the workplace are greatly influenced by social class.

The look of employment is changing because workers can no longer expect to work their way up through a company. Many companies look outside of the company for people with the right educational background instead of hiring from within. This greatly limits the potential for advancement of workers who lack formal education. For people to move up in the social hierarchy, they must obtain higher education. Instead of spending years at a lower level position, people are spending more time in school and moving directly into management. . Therefore at this day and age, more importance is givin to education in order for one to work his way up the social ladder.

I am glad to have been given this opportunity to talk to you today. The title of my speech is ‘Social ills among teenagers’. A lot has been said about the deviant behavior of teenagers. Our education system, the media, teenagers themselves and their parents have been blamed. here is no need to point an accusing finger at any particular group, but keeping mum over the issue is tantamount to condoning it. Our youths are our most valuable assets. They are the future leaders of the nation. The harm has already been done and it is now up to us to undo it.

One of the main reasons why our youths go astray may be the lack of parental supervision. Nowadays, both parents go out to work. Children are left in the care of foreign maids and child-minders. As a result, they are faced with the threat of the disintegration of the family values and thus, the rising trend in social ills and crimes among teenagers. Parents should closely monitor the activities of their children and be understanding. When parents are often too busy pursuing their own careers to spare some thought for the welfare of their children, children grow up with little religious or moral guidance.

When they do not get love and attention at home, they seek attention from others who may or may not come from similar backgrounds. Thus, the social ills affecting our youth may be a reflection of a much larger problem, such as the disintegration of the family unit. Ladies and gentlemen, the media may also play a part in the moral degradation among teenagers. Television programs which show violence and sex and glorify other negative aspects should be restricted.

There should also be stricter enforcement of the ban on pornographic material. Teenagers with little or nothing to do during their spare time usually take to the streets. Therefore, recreational facilities such as those found in sports complexes should be available to all youths. at present, existing recreational facilities seem to either be exclusively for the rich or for older people. the establishment of teen clubs and community centers, that do not charge high fees and that specially target teenagers, should be given top priority.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, everyone, including religious, educational and social institutions, as well as individuals and the media, must cooperate with the authorities to combat the social ills afflicting our teenagers. It is important that people, especially youths, do not get into the rut of moral decay. There should be a thorough study of the problem before a proper strategy can be mapped out to channel our youths towards healthier lifestyles. Thank you for your kind attention and have a nice day.

“The family is the most important institution in society. ” This statement is repeated in almost every sociology text in some form or another. However, current trends suggest that there may be some inaccuracies in this claim. Family is indeed important and necessary. It can even be defined as very important, but its relationship to the term institutional may be problematic. The conflict is inherent in the definition of family based of the functionalists and the conflict theorists.

Functionalist Theory

This conservative, macro-level perspective emphasizes the role of family as a social institution that contributes to social stability. Carroll (2012) explains that the violence and terror of the French Revolution and the mass violence resulting from the desperate circumstances of the workers during the Industrial Revolution led to fears of the consequences of a crumbling social order. Out of this fear grew conservative intellectual writings that examined social bonds, rules, and socialization practices that enable society to maintain a sense of stability that benefits all members of society.

Functional theorists warn of dire consequences if a strong society and effective socialization practices are not maintained. Carroll explains that Emile Durkheim, the French scholar who first presented this theory, suggested that society had a moral authority to “limit individual aspirations” in order to maintain norms and values and to limit social change in order to prevent social upheaval. Within this theory, family is seen as the institution that is responsible for socializing children, regulating sexual activity and reproduction, and provides its members with a social identity (Carroll, 2012).

Conflict Theory

This macro-level perspective focuses on the negative outcomes of societal norms, such as social inequality, and seeks to address and redress the aspects of society that perpetuate these undesirable norms. Carroll (2012) explains that this theory grew out of the works of Marx and Engels who believed that revolution was a necessary step for transforming a capitalist social order that enslaved the working class (the proletariat) to the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) and perpetuates poverty and misery for the enslaved.

The primary conflict according to Marx and Engels is based on perpetuating social norms within a class system that benefits one class over another. Conflict theorists examine how the family unit is also an institution that perpetuates inequality, by reinforcing patriarchy, between members of the family and seeks to find solutions to reduce or eliminate these innate inequalities. Feminist theory, in particular, evaluates how gender inequality is perpetuated within the family as children are socialized to fulfil future social, political, and economic roles (Carroll, 2012).

Symbolic-Internationalist Theory

A micro-perspective paradigm examines the meanings, interpretations, and understandings of the interactions of individuals within a society. While this type of theory does not contribute to evaluating and solving social issues such as poverty, racism, sexism, or social change, it does allow a context for understanding the nature of institutions, such as the family, within the macro-perspective theories. Social order is transmitted through symbols— roles, behaviours, and other social constructions— that are integrated as a result of social interactions (Carroll, 2012).

Although this is a micro-theoretical paradigm, understanding the interactions, communication, symbols, and expectations could contribute to alleviating the clash between the two macro-level theories. Understanding what works and what does not work permits opportunities to change or delete the aspects of family or family dynamics that contributes to inequality, without dismantling the entire institution and causing complete social upheaval.

The Changing Nature of Family O’Neill (2002) evaluates the “fatherless family” and provides ample statistics to show that the breakdown of the traditional family of father, mother, and offspring— due to increasing divorce and out-of-wedlock reproduction— is correlated with poverty, emotional, psychological, and heath problems, and interaction problems with children for lone mothers; health issues or increased engagement in high risk behaviours for non-resident fathers; poverty, deprivation, school troubles, more health problems, and increased risk of abuse for children who do not live with their biological fathers. Her conclusion that these issues are the result of the breakdown of the family is an example of functionalist theory.

She suggests that the outcomes are the result of the social breakdown of a vital social institution. A conflict theorist would more than likely suggest a different reason for the observed dysfunctions outlined by O’Neill (2002). The symbolic-internationalist would provide very specific context of the nature of the interactions within the families described by O’Neill and may find that the dysfunctions are not the result of resistance to socialized norms, but in fact due to conformity.

The “fatherless” family is led by a mother, and she is likely to be subject to societal norms that diminish her ability to earn as much as her male counterparts (increased poverty— which contributes to greater stress, diminished health, deprivation, etc. ). The functionalist would argue that the distressing results found in these families are also necessary outcomes, as society must not reward those who seek to disrupt the social order.

This functionalist attitude is very evident in current American political discourse as a number of far right-wing conservative politicians are introducing and passing legislation that reflects their fundamentalist Christian ideals in which patriarchal values that limit the “individual aspirations” of women to control their own reproduction. The traditional family consists of a bread-winning father and a home-making mother, an ideal that is held sacrosanct by this group of legislators.

The conflict theorist, by contrast, seeks to discover the constructs in society and within the family that cause the inequalities, rather than to blame the inequalities on those who are trapped by them for not conforming to the functionalist ideals. Families are continuing to evolve— at least the definition is— in that there is increasing acceptance— both social and legal— for families in which the primary adults are a same-sex couple, either with or without offspring.

The battle of ideologies still rages on in the United States, although an increasing number of states have extended legal status to families of this type. In Canada, the Civil Marriage Act was passed in 2005 and after a brief re-vote in 2007— which defeated the Conservative motion to restore the traditional definition of marriage— marriage equality became a non-issue (politically) when the prime minister announced his government would not bring it up again (Makarenko, 2007). Family as a Societal Institution The family serves a functional purpose in society in that it provides the environment for producing, nurturing, and socializing the next generation.

However, the nature of family has changed significantly and some of the new styles of families— single parent families, cohabiting unions, same-sex intimate partnerships, egalitarian marriages, and — contradict the societal norms representative in a traditional patriarchal family. Cherlin (2004) explains that the “weakening of social norms that define partners’ behaviour” has deinstitutionalized marriage. The political and religious backlash is indicative of the conservative functionalist view of social stability being reliant upon maintaining the status quo.

In fact, these conservatives are holding many of societies ills (e. g. , increased crime, debilitating poverty, sexual promiscuity, etc. ) as evidence that society is breaking down and traditional norms must be re-established in order to preserve order. The conflict theorists would argue that social norms are, in fact, the source of the dysfunctions in society. The solution is somewhere in between. The social norms that define family as an institution are likely problematic. The aspects of family that support and nurture intimate partners and children are vital to our continued well-being. In fact research suggests that the “symbolic significance” of marriage is still valued by individuals (Cherlin 2004).

Family as a refuge, a safe place to grow, learn, and achieve, is an ideal that inspires us, but family as a tool of the state to perpetuate inequity is what makes it an institution. The functionalists are correct, the institutions are failing, but a new family paradigm is emerging. Family is more about the relationships and what members of families can do for each other, rather than what the unit can do for the state. Burgess and Locke (1945) argued that the family is moving away from “institution” and moving toward “companionship”.

Perhaps it is time to let go of the functionalist definition and embrace the research of the social internationalists “to understand the other person’s symbols and meanings… [and] approach common ground” (Hammond, 2009). Inglehart and Baker (2000) found evidence in their World Values Surveys— that included 65 societies that represented 75 percent of the world’s population— that religious and traditional values continue to leave an imprint upon cultures but economic development is “associated with shifts away from absolute norms and values toward values that are increasingly rational, tolerant, trusting, and participatory.”

Conclusion

The modern definition of family is much too diverse to fit the functionalists’ traditional paradigm as an institution designed to perpetuate social norms in order to maintain social stability. Some modern families are examples of contradictory norms and are held up as examples by conservatives as the very reason society is on the brink of chaos. However, it is unlikely that society is in fact in danger of a complete breakdown. The new families are actually indicative of a society that is moving into a new paradigm where diversity is embraced.

Family is still valued and supported, but not as an institution that perpetuates social norms, but as a function that supports individual growth and security. The nature of this societal grouping is one of affection and security for all its members and as such will remain important and as long as families— of all types— are supported and sustained by society and by its members, the larger community will also benefit with the same stable society that the functionalists so adamantly wish to preserve.

The study of sociology demystifies that what is considered deviant behavior in one society may not qualify to be deviant in another. A number of other factors determine the qualification of this definition of deviance. For instance, deviant behaviors or acts may be classified as truly deviant depending on the condition in which they occur. Additionally, behaviors or acts can be tagged ‘deviant’ depending on the historical era.

This implies that, from one historical time to another, some behaviors or acts universally known to be deviant behaviors are likely to change their status definitions to be ‘not deviant’ as what we can learn from Rosenhan (1973) and Eqbar (1998). This paper takes a critical look at the varying definitions of deviance in different circumstances presented by both Eqbar and Rosenhan. Sociological Approach to Deviance (Eqbar (1998) and Rosenhan (1973)

Both Eqbar and Rosenhan share the same approach in defining deviance and agree that it is rather a complicated issue that needs to be understood. Eqbar attempts to explain deviance from the most complex issue of terrorism and carefully unfolds historical stories to at least come up with some imagery explanation. Eqbar explains that terrorism which is a serous matter in the world today which is ever changing begs more attention from world leaders to accurately mark on its causes and the remedial actions (Eqbar, 1998).

On the other hand, the issue of proliferation of mental hospitals is an issue of importance to Rosenhan which deserves much attention. Similar to Eqbar, Rosenhan is caught in dilemma in identifying accurately who is sane and who is insane in psychiatric environment and ends up referring himself a ‘pseudopatient’ (Rosenhan, 1973) Eqbar’s Approach to Deviance The sociological interpretations have used history as a tool to understand how deviance can change with time. One of the most relevant is examples is presented by Eqbar (1998).

Ahmad Eqbar while delivering a presentation at the University of Colorado in October 12th, 1998, identified how the West perceived Yasir Arafat and how this perception faded with time and almost disappeared. Between 1969 and1990 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was the centerpiece for all terrorist activities and Arafat was time and again described by the Western media as the “Chief of Terrorism” particularly by the New York Times William Safire (Eqbar, 1998). Earlier in 1930s and 1940s, the same description was coined to the Jewish underground living in Palestine.

However, things changed and the image was turned inside out! Eqbar (1998) noticed a unique marriage between the West and Arafat when he saw a picture of the leaders Arafat, Bill Clinton and the Israeli’s Prime Minster, Benjamin Netan seated together on the September 29th, 1998. Arafat who was frequently known as a man of the guns and an enemy to the Western people was at this moment branded a new image. This example as observed by Eqbar clearly indicates that the labeling of objects or personalities as deviant tends to change with history.

Yet another shocking experience Eqbar writes about is the time when President Ronald Reagan, from the West, warmly received a group of men from the East in the White House. In his speech, President Reagan in 1985 referred the bearded men as the Afghan Mujahiddin who acted as the “moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers” (Eqbar, 1998). A rather controversial reminder is the one time peaceful relationship that existed between the al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Bin Laden who after the September 11 attach was expected to be killed was a moral equivalent of the two leaders (Eqbar, 1998) but was demoted and got angrier to revenge in all ways. According to Eqbar (1998), deviance is seen to change with time as he draws an example of terrorism. Bin Laden, who was once the moral equivalent to Jefferson and Washington became a dangerous terrorist after his status demotion. In this perspective, Eqbar tries to explain that terrorism, which is a deviant behavior, tends to change with time such that today’s hero is tomorrow’s terrorist and today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s hero (Eqbar, 1998).

Rosenhan’s Approach to Deviance Another sociological approach to deviance can be seen in the works of Rosenhan (1973). Rosenhan takes us to the sociological environment of a psychiatric hospital where he finds himself in a state of dilemma to differentiate sane people from the insane. He blames factors such as depersonalization, powerlessness, mortification, segregation as well as self-labeling in playing critical roles in counter-therapeutics. In psychiatric hospitals, it emerges to be a challenge to make distinctions between the sane and the insane.

The meaning of behavior in the hospital environment can easily be construed. Rosenhan (1973) takes us through some of the conditions that totally change the true meaning of sanity in hospital environment and we can make an extrapolation to one of the sociological understanding that deviance is relative to the prevailing conditions. The conditions in hospital environment such segregation, depersonalization, self-labeling and mortification which are always crafted in larger part construe the meaning of sanity.

Dealing with Deviance in the Society Important insights can be obtained from the two approaches and definitions of deviance. The two definitions, Ember’s and Rosenhan’s can be intermarried to help solve crimes such as terrorism, rape, drug abuse, felony and murder which have become a challenge in the society. There seems to be different approaches how people view both issues of terrorism and sanity. Understanding the approaches drawn by Eqbar and Rosenhan will help appreciate these differences and deal with crime in the society.

Deviance changes with time as Eqbar draws it from the observation of Osama Bin Laden who was once a friend to the western and later become the worst enemy. Equally, the change of deviance is drawn by Eqbar in the case of Arafat who was once an enemy to the West but later a friend. While Rosenhan does not provide a straightforward definition on how to differentiate sanity from insanity in hospital environments, he admits that the psychiatric hospital provides a unique environment that makes the definition of sanity to surface.

Rosenhan (1973) identifies the existence of hospital conditions such as depersonalization, powerlessness, mortification, segregation as well as self-labeling to play a critical role in counter-therapeutics. The issue of proliferation of mental facilities in communities is the aim of Rosenhan’s approach. Using Rosenhan’s approach will ease the pressure in these facilities as the accurate psychiatric labels will be used in admitting individuals in psychiatric community facilities (Rosenhan, 1973).

Another issue that might be solved from Rosenhan’s approach is the need to increase the manner how mental health workers should be sensitive to the position of psychiatric patients in Catch 22 and increase research into psychiatry. This is because to other people, one can be tagged insane while to others ‘sane’. This is similar to what Eqbar observed in the issue of terrorism. Together, these approaches can be applied in understanding and reducing deviance in the society.

References:

Eqbar, A. (1998). Terrorism: theirs and ours. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from,             http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/

Rosenhan, D.L (1973). On being sane in insane places. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from,             http://psychrights.org/articles/rosenham.htm