Sociology

What are the three main types of bank transactions? Check, deposit, and withdrawal are the main types. Deposits can be used for checking or savings. Other types main include ATM, POS, charge, check, online.

Statistical evidence suggests that in terms of institutional religion, membership is in decline in Britain and in much of the rest of the world. Church attendance figures show a continuing drop in attendance throughout the twentieth century particularly in Anglican, Baptist and Catholic Churches. It has also been found that the number of children being baptised has dropped from 65% of the British child population to only 27%. Many sociologists use these statistics as support for their hypothesis in the secularisation of our society.

However an equal number disregard these facts as evidence of secularisation, arguing that for our society to become secular there must be a decline in religious belief not just Church membership. Institutional religion can be defined as a large organisation, that has particular codes of conduct, values and morals which members are supposed to follow. Private belief is when an individual has their own set of beliefs and moral guidelines to follow, worship and abidance to these rules are conducted personally and internally.

An opinion poll conducted in 1991 called the British Social Attitudes Survey found that only 10% of the English population and 1% of the people in Northern Ireland denied the existence of God outright. This suggests that Britain has a religious population supporting the idea that religion still has major influence over religious consciousness. It is therefore necessary to explain what has caused the decline in popularity of institutional religion if it is not a decline in religious belief itself.

It can be argued that for a society to be truly religious, religion must play a part in every aspect of life. This religious ‘Golden Age’ was present in Britain in the Medieval Ages where the Church held most of the power, wealth and status. Today the Church has less wealth and plays little part in the running of the country (there is little Church representation in the Government), Martin (1969) calls this process the disengagement of religion from wider society.

However many sociologists would dispute that the ‘Golden Age’ of religion does not automatically indicate an enhanced religious thinking but actually a lack of spiritual freedom which can lessen religious conviction. With an increasingly diverse ethnic mix present in British society there are more religions. Religious pluralism has made people aware that spirituality can be an individual journey and that they are not required to share the same beliefs as everyone else to be religious.

This is verification of the idea that institutional religion is in decline but not of secularisation, as although religious beliefs have changed they are still inherently spiritual. The sociologist Bellah defined religion as the search for the ultimate meaning of life but claimed that this did not have to involve the supernatural. Bellah supported the theory that religious pluralism is evidence against, not for, secularisation saying that religion has become an individual quest as religious doctrine had become less strict.

For example today it is impractical for all workers to rest on the Sabbath therefore it is no longer considered unholy to work on a Sunday allowing many to conduct their own worship in their own time. Consequently it is impossible to use research on the Church and other institutional religions as evidence of secularisation. Individuation is the natural evolution of religion whereby religion has not decreased but simply changed to become more personal to the individual. Bellah can be faulted however for his lack of evidence in individuation in wider Western society and also for his definition of religion being too vague

Parsons argued that through generalisation religious teachings have become an integral part of our society. Rather than there being a number of different teachings and values in one society, the institutional religion (in Britain it is Christianity) doctrine has become more generalised and embedded into modern culture. Parsons uses the example of healthcare. When the Church was at its height of power it was responsible for the running of the Hospitals, rather than the State. Religion was a major part of caring for the sick.

Today Hospitals are run by the Government but the notion that it the responsibility of the healthy and able to care for the sick is a religious teaching. David Martin looked into generalisation in the US and found the same as Parsons however both have been criticised. It has been said that neither provide enough detailed evidence to support their theory, for example they do not supply evidence that social values do not have a secular foundation rather than religious. Also many argue that it is wrong to assume that Britain and the USA are basically Christian societies.

In terms of whether society has become secular Parsons theory of generalisation suggests that this is not the case, religious principals have become embedded in our society. Weber, another leading sociologist, agreed that many of society’s core social guidelines in modern society have a religious origin. However where Weber significantly differs from Parsons is that he proposes that these guides to action have been transformed into secular guidelines, essentially Weber is arguing for secularisation.

Weber uses his study The Protestant Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism to show how the popularity of the Protestant faith has inadvertently caused a secular society. The teaching of the Protestant faith (to work hard and to keep reinvesting time, money and energy so to accumulate wealth) has lead to a decrease in the necessity of religion. Capitalism has brought about an increase in wealth, which provides its own satisfaction and rewards so there is less need for religion. Furthermore new technology and the mechanization of industry has resulted in there being less call for religion as a motivator for hard work.

Like generalisation the transformation theory can be condemned for lack of evidence for modern day values having religious origins. Alternatively one could argue that Weber’s theory does not disprove generalisation, he makes little argument for the Protestant Ethic not still being present in society today. Weber argued against individuation also, claiming that the supernatural belief has been banished from our society and all meanings and motives are governed by rational belief instead. Weber called this Desacrilisation.

Wilson developed the argument for desacrilisation citing four reasons for the dissolution of supernatural conviction. Firstly the rise in Protestantism, which Wilson argues encourages rational thought and behaviour. Secondly the rational organisation of society, this can be related to the fact that with a greater equilibrium in society this has lessened ???????????? /. Finally the development of rational ideologies such as Communism have highlighted negativity within religious institutions (for example Marx’s claim that ‘Religion is the opium of the people’).

Desacrilisation can be denounced for its lack of hard data, it almost appears that much of the theory is based on the impressions of particular researchers. When looking at society from a different perspective it is clear to see that the supernatural does play a significant role in our lives. An example being belief in superstitions such as walking under a ladder or making a wish when you break a wish bone or blow out candles. To imply that supernatural belief has been banished from our society would eradicate all superstitious related actions, yet they are still prevalent in our society.

A distinction is made between the definition of a social problem and sociological problem by Peter Worsley (1972). The latter refers to the problem of explaining social behaviour in terms of a sociological theory, whilst the former is some piece of social behaviour that causes public friction and or private misery and calls for collective action to solve it.

The study of social problems is a complex and very controversial undertaking. Broadly speaking, this is not understandable to the average layman whose concepts of what constitutes a social problem is firmly established by the rhetoric of his/hers everyday social discourse and indeed the classification of acts or situations as social problems seem to be a relatively simple exercise.

It is becoming more and more evident by present day sociologists and social scientists alike the complexities involved in defining, identifying and classifying a social situation as a social problem. This process has far-reaching implications on the focus, scope and projected recommendations of studies conducted of a particular social situation. There are two major conceptualizations of defining a social situation as a social problem. The first is centered around the self-explanatory phase “public opinion approach”.

This approach contends that a “social problem cannot exist for a society unless it is recognized by that society to exist” (Blumer, 1971) the inference here is that it is the members of the society that define and construct their social reality and that via socialization these interpretations of societal phenomena and value consensus is conveyed to the offspring. Individuals and social situations that do not conform to the norms and values of society are often viewed as social problems.

In Blumer’s definition of social problem he uses a broad concept of society but fails to further refine his definition. Merton writing in Contemporary Social Problems also utilizes in his definition of what is a social problem the broad and in my opinion ambiguous term “people”. His definition of social problems is as follows “a social definition exists when there is a sizeable discrepancy between what is and what people think ought to be”. One discovers that each society has their own conceptualizations and interpretations of their social world and furthermore as contemporary sociologists, namely M.

G. Smith and his pluralist model of society (adapted from the research of J. Furnival of Burma), have suggested different fractions of society have competing and contrasting ideologies. The use of such terms suggests social union and cohesion of meanings and oversimplifies the above mentioned complexities of societies. A branching school of thought emerging from the public-opinion approach in the defining of social problems is in my opinion the quantitative approach.

Perhaps realizing the aforementioned pitfalls of the definition proposed by Blumer and Merton some sociologist have attempted to further refine their definitions by assigning a seemingly quantitative value to them. Sheppard and Voss’s definition is critiqued by Manis [Contemporary Social Problems] They define a social problem as “a social condition which a large proportion of society … see as undesirable or in need of attention” Here the quantitative term “large proportion of society” refines the initial term “society” and “people” utilized in the definition of Blumer and Merton respectively.

Julian writing in Social Problems, 10th edition, too in his definition utilizes the term ” significant proportion of people”, Kornblum includes the term “most people” and likewise Fuller and Myers in their book The Natural History of a social problem, “American Sociological Review’ quantifies his definition by added the term ” a considerable number of people”. Though the inclusion of some additional factor concentrates the overall definition of what is a social problem it still does not give a full representation of the other forces at work that lead to a social condition being classified as a social problem.

We have moved from the ambiguity of the term “society” to saying that it’s the majority who decide or define social problems. The supporters of the public opinion approach contend that this approach limits the subjectivity of the researcher. Turner and Beeghley believe that by relying on the public’s conceptualization of what constitutes a social problem that the sociologist remain neutral and value-free thereby playing a passive rather than active role in the process of defining social problems, since he/she is unable to impose his values, morals and ethnics.

Gross dismisses the proposed objective rational proposed by the supporters of the public-opinon approach. He believes that for the sociologist even to interpret a public response to a social situation as negative or positive, good or bad is in itself a value judgment! This method of defining social problems is not as value free and objective as Beeghley and Tuner insinuate. If one is to speak of the majority, then what of the minority. In all fairness some public-opinion supporters have attempted to address this aspect of the debate around the definition of social problems.

Sheppard and Voss have included in their definition the point that not only is a social problem defined by the “large proportion of society” but by “powerful elements of it” who see a social condition as undesirable and in need of attention. Julian makes an intuitive juxtaposition of the words to further develop this point. In his definition he contends that a social problem is so defined when “a significant number of people or a number of significant people” … agree that the condition violates an accepted value or standard….

It confuses the definition somewhat since one is unable to determine whether the values of the majority are the ones violated by the social condition and it is thus defined as a social problem or if a social problem is so defined because the accepted values of the powerful (assumption here is that individuals who share the same social status or class have the same values) have been threatened. In the book, Defining Social Problems, there is considerable evidence to suggest that power groups play a significant role in the defining of social problems.

Here the writer contends, and correctly so, that a social problem can exist for a number of years and still not be classified or acknowledged as a social problem! A social problem is said to ‘exist when an influential group asserts that a certain social condition affecting a large group of people is a problem that may be remedied by collective action. ‘ This introduces the concept that social problems are ‘subjective, value-laden and culturally informed’ a point contested by Manis.

Furthermore it’s the influence of the power groups derived from their ‘strength, status or sheer number of people’ that have significantly impacted on social policy at the national level. The example given was centered around the hysteria of the milk cartoon kids. There arose in the 1950’s in the USA an outcry against the seemingly stark increase in the number of kidnappings. This caused a mass hysteria and this ‘social problem’ was deemed acute and severe enough to warrant an increase in police surveillance at schools. The situation was not a real social condition but it was considered as such.

This is one of the primary concerns of Manis whereby subjectivity in the definition of a social problem may lead to falsehoods. He suggests rather an objective approach which he labels the ‘knowledge values of science’. He links social facts to values and devises an approach to defining social problems based on: intrinsic values, contextual values and social responsibility values. By utilizing his method, he contends, ensures objective results by the sociologist. Though not part of the Marx theory, the labeling theory in this case exists alongside and supports the theory that power groups play a significant role in defining social problems.

Howard Becker was instrumental in the development of the labeling theory. Pierre Bordeaux, a Marxist, studied the education system extensively and acknowledges the ability of the powerful to impose their definition of reality on others. The controversy surrounding the definition of social problems is still going strong. Some may ask why is it important to understand how a social situation is classified as a social problem. The implementation of social policies affects everyone and some policies may not always be to our benefit.

For example the Mass Marriage Movement in Jamaica looked to encourage couples to marry because some British sociologists thought that single-parent families were having adverse effects on their children and this was considered a problem. Through the research of dedicated Caribbean sociologist we know differently. In conclusion, I adapt the view points of Merton and Roberts, Contempory Social Problems, that social problems ‘vary among societies and it varies in the same society among social groups and from time to time, since both the social realities and the social norms differ and change. Fuller and Myers to develop a rather accommodating definition of a social problem. They wrote ‘Every social problem thus consists of an objective and a subjective definition. The objective condition is a verifiable condition which can be checked as to the existence and magnitude by impartial and trained observers…. The subjective definition is the awareness of certain individuals that the condition is a threat to cherished values. ‘

Appendix 2

Instructions:

Click on the box in front of your selected answer. When completed, save and post as an attachment.

• 1. Which term is used to refer to a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than the members of a dominant group have over theirs?

a. minority group

b. majority group

c. stratified group

d. social group

• 2. In sociological terms, a majority is the same as a

a. numerical minority.

b. numerical majority.

c. dominant group.

d. subordinate group.

• 3. Members of a minority or subordinate group

a. generally marry outside their group.

b. become a part of the group voluntarily.

c. are political equals of the majority group.

d. share physical or cultural characteristics that differ from the majority group.

• 4. All of the following are processes that may create subordinate groups except:

a. immigration

b. extermination

c. annexation

d. colonialism

• 5. Which term is used by sociologists to describe a group that is set apart from others because of obvious physical differences?

a. social group

b. ethnic group

c. racial group

d. formal group

• 6.Which of the following is considered a racial group?

a. Puerto Ricans

b. Jews

c. African Americans

d. all of these

• 7. The U. S. has used skin color as the standard for race designation with

a. two categories: Black and White.

b. an elaborate system describing various combinations of skin color, facial features, and hair texture.

c. a continuum of most Black to most White.

d. a focus on cultural differences.

• 8. Which term is used to describe a group that is set apart from others primarily because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns?

a. ocial group

b. ethnic group

c. racial group

d. formal group

• 9. Ethnicity refers to

a. racial differences.

b. differences in physical and mental characteristics.

c. cultural differences.

d. citizenship.

• 10. Which of the following is considered an ethnic group? a. Puerto Ricans b. Irish Americans c. Mexican Americans d. all of these
• 11. Which of the following is NOT considered an ethnic group? a. Puerto Ricans. b. Italian Americans. c. Muslims. d. Polish Americans.
• 12. African American sociologist W. E. B. DuBois said in 1900 that the century’s major problem would be . class differences. b. the color-line. c. wars. d. poverty and disease.
• 13. Subordinate groups include a. Roman Catholics. b. women. c. deaf people. d. all of these
• 14. The concept of race is a. determined by blood type. b. predicated by skin shade increments. c. biologically based on genetically isolated groups. d. socially constructed.
• 15. Races can be clearly distinguished on the basis of a. skin color. b. blood type. c. genetic resistance to malaria. d. none of these 16. Traditional IQ tests tend to be biased against a. lower-class people. b. rural residents. . racial minorities. d. all of these
• 17. The hierarchical system for possession of wealth, prestige, or power is called a. ethnic groups. b. stratification. c. age. d. functionalism.
• 18. Which of the following theoretical perspectives tends to emphasize how the multiple parts of society are structured to maintain its stability? a. conflict theory b. functionalist theory c. macrosociological theory d. labeling theory
• 19. Which of the following perspectives on race and ethnicity tends to emphasize group tensions between the privileged and the exploited? a. onflict b. macrosociology c. microsociology d. functionalist
• 20. The conflict perspective emphasizes a. social change. b. the redistribution of resources. c. the exploitation of minorities by dominant groups. d. all of these
• 21. Exaggerated generalizations about the characteristics of members of a group that do not recognize individual differences within the group are known as a. stereotypes. b. pluralities. c. scapegoats. d. self-fulfilling prophecies.
• 22. Stereotypes are applied to a. gamblers. b. lesbians. c. people with disabilities. d. all of these
• 23.In certain situations, we may respond to stereotypes and act on them, with the result that false definitions become accurate. This is known as the a. functionalist theory. b. exploitation theory. c. self-fulfilling prophecy. d. authoritarian personality
• 24. The formation of a subordinate-group-dominant-group relationship emerges through a. annexation. b. colonialism. c. migration. d. all of these
• 25. Which term refers to the physical separation of two groups of people in terms of residence, workplace, and social functions? a. assimilation b. amalgamation c. segregation d. pluralism

This theory has caught the attention of the nation, and the federal government has taken steps to roved assistance in lower income and poverty stricken areas. One of the main programs that have been implemented into these lower income areas are Yam’s. The goal behind the YMCA is to bring sports, and other activities into the lower income areas and keep juveniles busy within the YMCA and keeping these kids off the streets and out of trouble. The second theory is the Social Process Theory.

The Social Process Theory is based upon the belief that colonization is key in determining ones behavior. If colonization is absent or portrayed in a negative manner, it can cause venires to act out in feel alienated from normal social behaviors. Children who feel isolated from their peers and do not have a loving environment at home are more likely to be involved in delinquent behavior. These children often turn to drugs or alcohol as an answer. An example of both state and federal funded program that assists with the Social Process Theory is the D. A. R. E Program.

The D. A. R. E program is designed to prevent kids from using drugs, engaging in violent and criminal acts and encourages them to engage n normal social behaviors with other kids their age. The third theory is the Social Conflict Theory. The Social Conflict Theory is a belief that our entire society is in a constant state of internal conflict, with various groups trying to impose their belief on others. The Social Conflict Theory suggests that those of wealth and power help define laws to meet their specific needs while ignoring the needs of the rest of society.

It is believed that adolescents that do not fit into the needs of the powerful members of society are labeled criminal delinquents. Those that suffer the most from social conflict are people of color or those living in poverty stricken areas. An example of a program that targets the youth suffering from the social conflict program is Promising Practices Network. The Promising Practices Network is a school based violence prevention program that serves over 400 public schools in poverty stricken areas. This program is designed to fight prejudice, stereotypes and other types of violence.

As shown here these three sociological theories are vital ways to view the issues related to juvenile delinquency. The programs related to each of these theories are extremely beneficial to lowering crime rates among juveniles. I truly hope that we continue to fund these wonderful programs, as it benefits the future of America.

Compare Marxist and Functionalist Perspectives Compare and Contrast Functionalist and Marxist Perspectives Sociology is a systematic way of studying the social world. It seeks to discover the causes and affects of intercommunication and interaction that arise in social relations. “The science of society” was developed as a discipline in the 19th Century by Auguste Compte, a French philosopher. For him, common sense and the obvious would not suffice; he wanted to build scientific theories based on critical awareness of society.

The two main stems of sociological concepts are Positivism and Phenomenology. Both Functionalism and Marxism are Positivist theories. This means that philosophies are built by using scientific research methods to create structural perspectives. Positivism is called macro sociology because it looks at society holistically; it also emphasises the power of Society and how this effects man’s behaviour. Positivism was a philosophy from the Modern Era when society was industrial, England’s culture untolerating, the mass media conservative and pro-establishment.

Role in society was extremely important; it was traditional and genders specific. Functionalism provided a static view of society. It was rooted in the work of Emile Durkheim, a French Sociologist and during the later stages, Talcott Parsons. Although functionalism was not a dominant theoretical perspective in sociology until the 1940s and 1950s, it first emerged during the 19th Century. Marxism was founded by a German philosopher, economist and sociologist, Karl Marx. Fredrich Engels also contributed to development the works.

Marxism offered a radical alternative to the functionalism perspective and was developed in the 1970s. Both perspectives of Marx and Durkheim, aspired for a Utopian society. Functionalism views society like a biological organism. The parts or institutions of the organism or society function appropriately to ensure the whole structure works efficiently and effectively. The whole has greater power than the individual parts. The three main aims and objectives of functionalism are to maintain order, stability and equilibrium in society.

Marxism became increasingly influential due to; the decline in functionalism, its promise to provide answers (which functionalism did not) and its mood reflected that of the times. It originally consisted of three related ideas: a philosophical view of man, a theory of history and an economic and political program. The basic principal was that production equals social enterprise. Man needs to produce food, materials, etc… for survival, and in doing so; man enters into relations with other members of society.

From a functionalist perspective, the main parts of society (its institutions such as education, religion and the family) are the foundations for social structure. These institutions have interconnected roles and interrelated norms to form a complete system. All of the institutions have a role to meet the functional prerequisites (society’s basic needs). Integration between the parts is necessary so therefor integration is a functional prerequisites in itself. Social relations are organised, in result of values providing general guidelines for behaviour.

Functionalist, Talcott Parsons set out four functional prerequisites essential for society: Goal Attainment- setting goals, e. g. Government/Education, Adaptation- development of material world, e. g. Mass Media/Industry, Integration- promoting harmony and social solidarity, e. g. Religion/Family, Latency- meeting individual needs to satisfy demand, e. g. Family/Mass Media. From a Marxist view, the force of production is the collective term for all things needed for production. The means of production are those parts of production which can be legally owned (land, machinery, and slaves… . Society’s infrastructure was made up of the forces of production plus the social relations. The Superstructure includes the institutions of society and is shaped by the infrastructure. This therefor means that the institutions are primarily determined by economic factors. Marxism relates class not to income or family like functionalism does, instead it is measured on how much land, machinery… is owned and controlled- so it depends on the means of production. The person(s) who had the most means of production are the ruling class. The ruling class produces the dominant ideas in society.

Their domination relies heavily on the exploitation and oppression of others. The employer to employee relationship of exploitation is concealed by ideology. Some accept the ruling class conflict as natural and so are lulled into false consciousness. Functionalism relies on social stratification. Kingsley Davis, an American Sociologist and Demographer said “As a functioning mechanism society must distribute its members in social positions and induce them to perform the duties of these positions”. Without this casting of society’s members, the institutions would be unbalanced and equilibrium could not be reached.

Functionalism sees this as a positive and inevitable aspect of society. In Marxism, the lower classes are exploited because they can be. Social change in Functionalism occurs when one of the institutions alters in some way. These changes only come about when society requests it. These changes in institutions cause society to behave, inevitably different. Marx believed all historical societies contain basic contradictions: the exploitation of one social group by another. Perhaps in a way, Marxism is perhaps a little more realistic than functionalism.

Therefor, they cannot survive in the existing form. The major frictions are between the forces and the relations of production. A great deal of the wealth, produced by the workforce is appropriated in the forms of profit by the Capitalists- the ruling class. The wages of the workers are not equivalent to the wealth they produce and so the ruling class was exploiting and oppressing the working class. Marx predicted a new and final epoch. A society that would have complete equality. There would be no new force of production but the relations of production will be transformed.

The ownership of production would be collective, as the members of society would share the wealth. The ruling class would no longer exploit or oppress the workers. It is interesting how Functionalists see people as unequal a positive thing and Marxists believe it a negative one. Functionalism fails to recognise social change, contrasting to Marxism which recognises and aspires to it. It is a conservative ideology which ignores the dysfunction’s and assumes every institution is positive for society. Marxism, on the other hand, accepts conflict and the arising social problems.

The perspective tries to understand how to overcome societies problems by looking back over history and learning from past mistakes. Functionalists assume that everyone in society is in agreement and shares norms. It believes in the power of the institutions to socialise its members so well that deviance is rare. However, every society has deviants and so this statement is a little too confident. Functionalism shows us clearly the primacy of culture and socialisation via the social institution. Marxism underestimated the resilience of Capitalism, for example, Americas tragedy on the 11th September 2001.

MODERNIZATION THEORY Introduction: Modernization is an inherently optimistic concept for it assumes that all countries eventually experience economic growth. This optimistic must be understood in the historical context of post war prosperity and growth in the north and independence of many southern colonies along with the growth of national markets and trades. The theory of modernization turns out into the high mass consumption and urbanization. The theory of economic growth is an alternative to Marxist theory. Meaning and history of modernization theory:

Modernization theory is a collection of perspective which, while at their most intellectually influential in the 1950s and 1960s. Along with the growth of national markets, made nineteenth century capitalists much more effective and ambitious than any of other forebears; hence the so-called ‘industrial revolution’. Definition of modernization: 1. Modernization theory is the theory used to summarize modern transformations of social life. 2. Historically modernization is the process of change towards those types of social, economic, and political systems that have developed in the Western Europe. Eisenstadt-1966) Theoretical origins of modernization: The theory of modernization has its roots in the ideas of some scholars they produced different theories about the origins, characters, and future path of modern industrial society. Which we can now examine closely: Emile Durkheim: Durkheim proposes that there are two types of society ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ society, which have different forms of social cohesion between their members. The people of the traditional society perform the limited tasks of a simple agrarian community based on group of families and clan in village settlements.

Each group though a similar to all others thinks, believes and life styles are relatively self-contained. Its members perform all the required rules of farming, childrearing, social control defiance and so on. Each group is then a sort of segment, a discreet unit in a large society; hence durkheim also called this a ‘segmental’ society. The traditional society is contrasted with the modern society- in whichever increasing numbers and density of the 0f the population. This leads to a more people competing for relatively scarce resources.

When competition becomes the fiercest, a social resolution to these problems had to emerge and this creates a gradual increase in social division of labor. Social differentiation occurs as a specialized institution are formed by people to deal with particular need of society such as religious, economic, political, educational and so on. The modern society is more cultured and less rigid and allows more scope for individual frustrations and happiness. Durkheim called this society “organic society’.

Max weber: max weber sought to explain the emergence of industrialization, though he focused his attention on answering why capitalist manufacturing became dominate only in the economy of western. The basic explanation for this occurrence was the existence of cultural processes namely rationalization. Weber suggested this was not an easy or natural form of behavior; one of the important factors that promoted this work ‘ethic’ was according to weber not economic but religious.

His beliefs that as western society has developed, more and more of its members act in ways that are guided by the principals of rationality and less by custom of tradition. He sees the coming of the modern era as sciatic birth of individual as a relatively free agent not about by rigid. Walt whitman Rostow: rostow illustrates the concept of modernization per excellence. in his work on economic growth (rostow-1960a; 1960b) the form of growth experience in north are taken as a model for the rest of the world, while economic are situated at different stages of development all are assumed be moving to the same direction.

Traditional society is poor, irrational and rural. The take off stage requires a leap forward, based on technology and high levels of investment; preconditions for this the development of the infrastructure, manufacturing and effective government. After this the societies reach a stage of self-sustaining growth, in its mature stage technology pervades the whole economy leading to ‘the high mass consumption, high productivity and high levels of urbanization. This feature includes prenewtonian science and technology.

All this typically takes 20 years and rostow attempts to date actual take off of those countries, which have experienced them. (1783-1803) For Britain which was the first followed amongst others, USA (1890-1940), Japan (1878-1900), Russia (1890-1914) and India, china (1950 onwards). Modernization: Modernization was prompted by the decline of the old colonial empires. The third world became a focused of attention by politicians who were keen to show countries pushing for independence that sustain development was possible under the western wings or modernization theory.

Trumans speech embodies this initial optimism. Modernization can be described as optimistic because it presents development as a easy process enduring under development is explained in terms of obstacles. Paolo Friers suggests people need to develop political consciousness and the rout to this is though pedagogic techniques of empowerment. Learner(1964) explains the from traditional to modern. Be beliefs that ‘Transitional society’ a society which has the process of cultural diffusion from more advanced sector of the world; been exposed to modernity.

For learner the traditional society a society that has defined by what it wants to become, it is empathetic society. Lear said that ‘traditional society’ is not participant; it deploys people by kinship into communities isolated from each other and from a center the bands of interdependence people horizons are limited by local (1964, p-50). In the 1940s and 1950s was the only realistic way for LDC to industrialize. In general then for learner the mare a society exhibits empathy the more it will be engaged in the process of modernization and more likely is be modern.

There is a clear mixture of sociological, psychological and economic feature to modernization theory, including for example, reference to value systems, individual motivation and capital accumulation. The critique of modernization theory: There are cultural and intellectual rejections of modernity. The boundaries between low and high culture are broken down. Intellectually post modernism involves and of the dominance of the unitary theories of progress and belief in scientific rationality.

Modernization theory has not survived intact as viable paradigms for understanding change and transformation or process of poverty inequality. The theory cannot realistically explain the problem of global inequity and poverty. The principal term of the theory the traditional and the modern are much too vague to be of much use on classification of distinct skeptics. The two terms do not give the way indication of the great variety of society there have and do exist. Although the theory is supposed to be the way of society develops.

There is little explanation offered for this problem. This is a serious weakness. Industrialized modern and its attendant’s urbanization weaker the wider kinship system as the people become primarily concern with the nuclear family (will’s 1977). Modernization completely undermines the values of extended family ties (penn-1986). It also derived from salvation among Protestants on important contributory factor in the rise of rational capitalism. The most forceful criticism of modernization theory is that it entirely ignores the impact of imperialism on third world countries.

This is a staggering omission. Conclusion: Modernization deals with social change from agrarian societies to industrial ones, it is important to look at the technological viewpoint. New technologies do not change societies by it. Most accounts give greatest priority to the role played by the values, norms and beliefs of people in determining the sort of society – traditional or modern- that they create and thus value changes are the most important conditions for social change.