Sociology

In Oxford English Dictionary (ODD, 19971 ‘Hawthorne effect’ is defined as meaning ‘an improvement in the performance of workers resulting from a change in their working conditions, and caused either by their response to Innovation or by the feeling that they are being accorded some attention’. The groundbreaking experiments started in 1927 at the Hawthorne workers Chicago. The reason why Hawthorne works conducted those studies at first was aimed to see whether those workers could become more effective in a higher level of light or not.

Mayo and his associates found out that the product Improved hen changes of any working conditions were made. After several years’ researched, they finally came to a conclusion that the increasing productivity probably due to the impact of the motivational effect on the workers as a result of the interest being shown In them from these experiments. And Just as Brakeman (1974) pointed out that the Hawthorne tests were based on Industrial psychology and were Investigating whether workers’ performance could be predicted by pre-hire testing’.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss the finding from and repercussions of Mayo’s tidies, to analyze the relations between the Hawthorne experiment and the human relations movement theory and provide some critical review about the Hawthorne studies in the 20th century. Findings of Hawthorne studies Scholars tended to considerate Hawthorne studies as one of the most powerful experiments in management history ‘ helping to spawned development of a new field of study?industrial psychology?and still influencing experimental research design today’ (Levity, 2011 However, we dividend the whole experiments Into four stages for discuss.

The first stage, illumination experiment, has fully showed that it is important for anger personnel to pay attention to the relationships between workers rather than the working condition in their workshop, for example, the levels of light. To clarify this point further, the welfare experiment was conducted. It explained that 1 OFF enthusiasm of the employees. However, the communication along workers is the basis of the dramatic increases of productivity. Then, sociologists revealed the effects of “informal group” on the productivity through group experiment.

Mayo (1945) interpreted this stage that those informal teams gave themselves wholeheartedly ND voluntarily to accomplished the experiment. What’s more, Mayo and his associates interviewed some workers in the Hawthorne works to gather more information to prove their findings. The interviews had a cathartic effect on the employees. They find that the majority of workers were strongly eager for equality, respect and the sense of belongings in their workplace. After all the effort them had made, the key findings of Hawthorne experiments are as follow: 1. Hawthorne experimental proved that people are ‘social person’.

Mayo objected to the old hypothesis that considered people as ‘economic man’. He holds the view that money is not the key factor for workers to improve their productivity. Moreover, productivity is not Just a matter of reducing fatigue or significantly a matter of money, it mainly depends on the worker’s enthusiasm. Workers longed for emotional comfort, security, harmonious and sense of belonging. 2. Hawthorne experimental confirmed the experimental efficiency largely associated with the relationships between man and man in an organization. Sociologists found that besides formal organization, there are informal groups.

Those groups own their facial emotion and tendency and play a decisive role on the production efficiency. 3. Elton Mayo also developed an explanation based on “anomie”. The word describes the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and their community. It indicates that people should attach more importance to interpersonal relationships. 4. When talking about management skills, cohesive and good leadership are needed to ensure effective and coherent decision-making. Management personnel, or chief executives ought to place themselves in others’ position to care subordinates and create an atmosphere for good communication.

Those findings from Hawthorne Experiments throw a light on the modern management theory. Ever since it, a great deal of theoretical and practical work has been done to achieve a high level of commitment in the organizations. As Sacristans and Locke (2006) cited that ‘more and more companies acquire their employees to be able to successfully communicate and convey information, to be able to interpret others’ emotions, to be open to others’ feelings, and to be able to solve conflicts and arrive at resolutions nowadays’.

From this example, It’s can’t be denied that Hawthorne studies tremendously influence our work life today. Critical thinking science management experiments, there still exists some suspect of the result of Hawthorne effect. We should view the findings in a more rational ways. On one hand, the methodology of Hawthorne experiments has been largely criticized in technically. It seems that Mayo and his colleagues were not always rational when conducted the experiments.

Parsons (1974) argues that the conclusion is not accurate because of the feedback gathered from workers maybe emotional, the replies of workers are mostly emotional and suspicious, and those bias may lead to a wrong result of experiments. On the other hand, some sociologists doubted the Hawthorne studies in the social dimension. Scholars felt that although Mayo found the importance of informal work group in organizations but he ignored the effects of the union of the informal group.

Gilson(1940) and Knowles (1955) believed that human relations movement was designed to drive workers away from unions. It should be noted that the Hawthorne effect put more stress on the relationships between co-workers and ignore the regulations and rules in the organization. But from my point of view, the modern scholars should take note of that there is no reflect experiments in the history. ‘Yet Hawthorne proved that this type of research comes with a potential cost, as different fields have different assumptions and values that limit cross-disciplinary research’ (Mullion, 2012).

No matter how much criticism and praise the Hawthorne studies gained, it has accelerated the movement of management and obviously changed our working condition in some way. Summary Since the scientific management spring up from the sass, the development of Tailors successfully made an incredible increase in worker’s productivity, nevertheless, it also lead to a more stressful working environment in workplace. Workers became extremely nervous and tried resulted from the assembly line, and the Jobs became more and more monotonous.

It has aroused strong dissatisfaction of the workers, resulting in a lot of strikes and worsens the relations between employees and employers. The Hawthorne studies helped people to realize the significant influence of the relationship in workplace. Maps studies provided researchers with an analysis of workers’ behaviors within the organization. It is not enough to say how those experiments have influenced sociologists to do researches and that is also the reason why many scholars studied the Hawthorne experiments after all these years.

Human relations are a complex concept that neither ‘economic men’ nor ‘social men’ can fully explain worker’s behaviors in plants. Whereas, we must admit that Elton Maps study has his bias and some conclusions may be proven wrong in the future by modern sociologists. With time going by, the methodology of management has changed and maybe more and more critical opinions has came out to doubt the importance, we can better handle the relationships in the workplace and improve the enthusiasm of workers which finally increase the production.

It is wildly accepted that Mayo was among the first sociologists to highlight the importance of teamwork. Critical review of company mergers Nowadays, it’s a common phenomenon that companies in less developed countries are gobbled up by companies in developed country. However some scholars held the opinions that it’s harmful to let those multinational companies take share of local market, and others argued that those takeovers would definitely bring benefits for all shareholders. Obviously, it has become a hot topic and caused drastic debate in our society.

According to Ludwig(2006), after the mergers, profit will go out of local entry in larger percentage, and in fact, it will cause unimaginative loss to local companies and those international companies can benefit from this trick. Thus, it will dramatically lower the standards of education and health care in local country and worsen the local people’s life and unavoidable to damage to the local economic. Furthermore, allowance of company mergers will break the bond between the employees and employers in local companies.

At first, both of them shared the honors of their company, and the changes in management style and communication bring a lot of confusion and anxiety. It is more likely to bring about increased absenteeism and inefficiency, what is more worse is that employees may lose their sense of loyalty to their company. Finally after the arrival of multinational companies, a clash of cultural values is inevitable. Those larger, powerful companies based in developed countries will push their concept into the whole countries and had an long lasting effect on local companies.

It also arise our anxiety of so-called ‘culture invasion’. Those opinions sound sacred for companies who considered merging with powerful international companies. But there are some voices insisted the advantages of company mergers. Firstly, Fatherlier (2006) argues that the powerful international companies can make up the shortages of local companies, such as the lack of marketing skills or finance and the inefficiency of management. Local companies can always be benefit in terms of scientific management practices that will largely reduce the production costs and higher the quality of products.

Secondly, for multinational companies, the mergers could loosen the barriers of entering the local market, and make it easier to get through the rules, regulations and many other troubles (Santiago,2005). On the other hand, in the practice of merger, international impasses can combine their management skills with the actual working situation and enrich their experiences. Thirdly, the increase of production will fasten the development of local countries and people can also be benefit from gaining a wilder choice of products, better quality and cheaper prices.

As far as I am concerned, to decide to combine with a international company is to face a substantial risks. The key point to success is to maintain your own business culture through the whole company. For those local companies, it is definitely a vital disadvantage of the loss of management practice and finance. After merger, they can quickly learn management skills or get abundant capital form powerful international companies, but what is must be emphasized is the local company can not loss the basic concept of their own company.

The culture of one company plays an important role in helping to main the working place. What also need to be put stress on is, in case of avoiding the conflicts after merger, both of companies need to make it clear about the responsibility and obligation. And the weaker company should know how to protect themselves in an international business environment. It will not be difficult for us to find that, as to many mergers, there are both advantages and disadvantages. We must view the argument critically. Only in that way can we draw an objective conclusion.

Proponents of the nature side of the argument claim that these personality traits are hereditary and hat when you are born, you already possess all of the key traits that form your personality. L, for one, disagree. Based on my own knowledge, I have come more to agreement with the side that claims we are who we are by nurture. So given the argument that we are born with a set number of traits that will dictate our personality, that may be true, but what evokes us to actually exhibit these traits?

Nurture isn’t it?! For example, a child may be born with the personality trait to be lazy. However, if raised by a more proactive parent, the child will eventually adjust to his mentality and learn to get things done in a prompt and proper manner. I then continue to conclude that we develop our individual personalities to fit into how we think others see us. We are continuously changing depending on the people we are in contact with.

You are not the same person you are with your friends as you are with your family. This is because you know that they expect different things from you. The child In my previous example, for Instance, may really be lazy by nature, but, because he or she knows what Is expected by the parent, the child changes him or resell to fit Into that Industrious role. So, I am the outgoing, caring, kind, and respectful person I am because I was raised that way.

I was taught to always work for what I want because nothing worthwhile comes for free in life. I respect because I am respected and I care because I am cared for. All in all, the people in my life deserve to be thanked for shaping me into the notable person I have come to be. Their good ways have influenced me through the nurture they have provided over the whole time being.

Understanding Intimate Partner Violence through Role Theory: A Concept Paper Introducing Role Theory Role theory is a sociological framework that has been used to explain sets of relational patterns between people across varying contexts. It seeks to explain one of the most important characteristics of human social behavior – the fact that how people act, behave and speak are not separate, unique, disconnected but rather, are reflective of certain patterns and arrangements that depend on the social context and the actors in these contexts (Mangus, 1957; Biddle, 1986).

To illustrate, within the context of an intimate relationship such as marriage, violence between partners can be tied to the particular patterns and arrangements of acting, behaving and speaking between partners – such as earning money, rearing children, taking care of the home and initiating sexual relations.

Although several versions of the theory have been explicated by scholars, there appears to be agreement that role theory is mainly about three interrelated concepts:

1. patterned and characteristic social behaviors,
2. parts or identities as assumed by social participants,
3. scripts or expectations for behavior that are understood and followed by actors in a particular social context (Biddle, 1986).

For instance, adopting a role theory perspective to understanding intimate partner violence necessitates looking at the patterned and characteristic social behaviors of intimate partners in a relationship, the parts or identities that each partner plays in the relationship, and the scripts or expectations that are interpreted and adhered to by the partners in a particular relational context, specifically in situations of violent encounters.

Furthermore, the theory also allows for an understanding of the relationships among the individual, collective and structural levels of society (Turner, 2001), as it deals with the organization and connection of social behavior between the micro, macro and intermediate levels of society. Thus, within role theory, an analysis of intimate partner violence entails looking into the individual behaviors of partners in a violent relationship and tracing the linkages of these behaviors to the social structures that exist in a particular society.

Defining Roles

Central to role theory is the concept of role. Several definitions have been ascribed to the concept of role in the literature. On a general level, the concept of role includes a description of behaviors, characteristics, norms and values held by a person (Thomas & Biddle, 1966). Another definition identifies role as a cluster of behaviors and attitudes that are understood as belonging together, such that a person is considered as acting consistently when enacting the various components of a single role and variably when he or she fails to do so (Turner, 2001).

For instance, the traditional masculine role can be characterized as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, independent and persistent whereas the traditional feminine role can be illustrated as agreeable, courteous, sympathetic, trusting, understanding and warm (Ellington & Marshall, 1997). As such, a partner who plays the masculine role must enact behaviors and attitudes that are typical of this role, such as being aggressive, dominant, independent and agentic. For this partner cast in the masculine role, to be passive, dependent and agreeable implies incompatibility with the traditional masculine role.

Specifically, a role may refer to behavior that is expected of people who occupy particular social categories such as statuses (or positions) in both formal and informal systems (Montgomery, 1998 as cited in Lynch, 2007; Biddle & Thomas, 1979 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Roles may also be reflective of the cultural values and norms in a particular society (Zurcher, 1983 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Roles may also be conceptualized as a resource that social actors try to utilize to achieve certain social goals (Callero, 1994).

This assumption suggests two things:

1.  that human agency is facilitated and expressed through the use of roles as resources, and
2. that roles are employed as tools in the establishment of social structures (Baker & Faulkner, 1991 as cited in Callero, 1994).

Most social roles exist in pairs or sets. Thus, roles can be conceptualized as related through distinctive role relationships (Mangus, 1957). As such, there could be no husband role without a wife role and no parent role without a child role. In the context of intimate violence, there exists the perpetrator-victim role set.

As organized patterns of social behavior, roles are of several types (Mangus, 1957). Roles may be ascribed to the individual, imposed upon an individual or achieved by the individual (Mangus, 1957). Sex and gender roles are ascribed to or imposed upon an individual (Mangus, 1957). For instance, one has to assume the masculine role if one is male or the feminine role if one is born female. On the other hand, one’s roles in groups and occupational systems, such as leader, mediator or peacemaker, are achieved roles. Roles may also be understood as generic or specific.

Some roles may be pervasive, persistent, generalized and highly important to a person’s life while other roles may be limited, subordinate, temporary, isolated and unimportant to a person’s life (Mangus, 1957). To illustrate, in a violent intimate relationship, the roles of perpetrator and victim may be the predominant configuration in the relationship. On the other hand, these roles may also be seen as isolated to particular relational contexts and thus understood as subordinate to other roles such as father, mother, breadwinner and caretaker.

Roles may also be highly abstract or they may be concrete (Mangus, 1957). Abstract roles emerge from social systems of statuses and are expressed as generalized moral standards (Mangus, 1957). Examples of abstract roles are evident in universal expectations of honesty and justice. Status roles include rights and duties that emanate from a given position or office (Mangus, 1957). Illustrations of status roles can be seen in the entitlements and obligations that are given to persons of authority, such as managers, leaders or decision-makers.

Turner (2001) also identified four broad types of roles: (1) basic roles, (2) position or status roles, (3) functional group roles, and (4) value roles. Basic roles refer to roles that are associated with gender, age and social class (Banton, 1965 as cited in Turner, 2001). These are considered basic roles because they apply to a wide range of situations and because they tend to alter the meaning and taking up of other types of roles. The second type of roles, position or status roles, correspond to positions in organizations or formally organized groups (Turner, 2001).

Occupational and family roles may be regarded as examples of position or status roles. Functional group roles are the informal behavior patterns that arise spontaneously as persons take on situational identities during social interactions (Benne & Sheats, 1948 as cited in Turner, 2001). Examples of functional group roles are mediator, coordinator, critic, counselor, leader and follower. Finally, value roles are similar to functional group roles in that both types of roles emerge spontaneously from the social interaction.

However, value roles tend to be attached to very positively or negatively valued identities (Turner, 2001). In intimate relationships, examples of value roles can be the roles of hero, villain, saint, sinner, perpetrator or victim. After providing an overview of role theory and the concept of roles, we now turn to explain the two major approaches to understanding role theory. Two Main Approaches to Understanding Roles A review of the related literature identified two main approaches to understanding roles: (1) the traditional structural-functional approach and (2) the interactionist approach.

In this section, we highlight the characteristics of each approach as well as provide an explanation of the major assumptions within each perspective. We also provide illustrations as to how each approach can help enlighten our understanding of intimate partner relationships. Finally, we discuss the limitations of each approach. Traditional Structural-Functional Approach The structural-functionalist tradition of role theory focuses on how roles, as fixed components of complex social structures, cultures or social systems, influence the behavior of people (Lynch, 2007).

Two related strands of role theory are embedded within this approach – structural role theory and functional role theory. Structural role theory concentrates on social structures, which are understood as stable organizations of sets of persons (called “social positions” or “statuses”) who share the same patterned and characteristics behaviors (roles) that are in relation to others sets of persons in the structure (Biddle, 1986). This particular strand of traditional role theory refers to parts of organized groups as “status” and to the fixed behaviors expected of persons occupying a status as “roles” Stryker, 2001). Thus, roles may be conceptualized as the dynamic aspect of statuses or social positions, with roles corresponding to rights and duties attached to statuses or social positions (Stryker, 2001). Within this strand, roles are understood as existing prior to the social interaction of people who occupy the statuses or social positions, as roles originate from the accumulated experiences of past individuals who have previously occupied a status or social position (Stryker, 2001).

The second strand of traditional role theory – functionalist role theory – highlights the characteristic behaviors of persons who occupy social positions within a stable social system (Biddle, 1986). Within this strand, roles are conceptualized as the shared and normative expectations that prescribe and explain these characteristic behaviors (Biddle, 1986). Functional role theorists view the enactment of roles as something that is learned through an understanding of social norms in a society as well as something that accomplishes certain functions in social systems (Biddle, 1986).

Both structural and functional strands of the traditional approach to role theory emphasize social structures as antedating roles, such that roles are seen as imposed on the individual (Turner, 2001). Thus, within this approach, the roles of perpetrator and victim can be understood as emanating from social structures such as gender. For instance, the masculine role has often been identified with being the dominant partner, the primary breadwinner, the decision-maker and the enforcer of rules in the household.

On the other hand, the feminine role has often been linked with being the subordinate partner, the caretaker of the home and the supporter of the husband and children. Such role configurations may put partner occupying the masculine role at an advantage while setting the partner playing the feminine role at a disadvantage, thus making them vulnerable to becoming perpetrators and victims of intimate violence (Mihalic & Elliot, 1997). Furthermore, this approach also points to socialization as the process by which persons learn to take on and perform particular roles in society (Stryker, 2002).

Thus, when persons in social relationships conform to the expectations that are attached to statuses and supported by social norms, they tend to gain approval from other people who occupy related statuses and adhere to similar norms; such approval then reinforces the learning and enactment of roles (Stryker, 2002). Research has shown that typical school practices tend to create children’s identities as boy and girls (Martin, 1998 as cited in Fox & Murry, 2000).

In particular, findings showed that teachers tend to treat boys’ voices as different from girls’ voices, such that the former were allowed to be louder and more as compared to the latter. Presumably, such gender role socialization contributes to the accrual of privileges to the masculine role and the corresponding accrual of disadvantages to the feminine role. In addition, both strands of the traditional structural-functional approach to role theory agree on the assumption that society, social systems and social structures shape individual behaviors (Brookes, Davidson, Daly & Halcomb, 2007).

Analysis within this approach also starts from an examination of the social structure (Biddle, 1986). As such, within this approach, an examination of intimate partner violence will proceed from an investigation of the social systems and social structures that influence violent behaviors between partners in an intimate relationship. Furthermore, such an analysis will look into the cultural norms and values that sustain the social systems and social structures implicated in the phenomenon of intimate partner violence.

However, several limitations of this approach have been raised in the related literature. According to Lynch (2007), this approach paints roles as relatively inflexible structures that are difficult to combine. Furthermore, by focusing on social structures, the traditional approach to role theory fails to take into account the mental, experiential dimension of role enactment (Lynch, 2007), thus regarding persons as automatons who take on roles mechanically.

As such, this approach tends to be limited in its view of intimate partner violence as mechanically carried out by individual persons according to their status or position in the social structure, without taking into account the variability and diversity of experiences related to this phenomenon. Also, as it has difficulty accounting for individual level negotiations where actors may switch or combine roles, this approach also treats the variability and flexibility of roles as problematic (Lynch, 2007). Thus, traditional role theory is unable to address issues related with non-conformity, social change and social systems that are not well-formed (Biddle, 1986). For instance, given instances of intimate partner violence where both partners inflict violence upon one another, traditional role theory proves to be limited in its explanation of intimate violence as emanating from the social structure. Within this approach, role changes such as when the perpetrator becomes the victim and the victim becomes the perpetrator become problematic and difficult to explain.

The traditional structural-functional approach to role theory has also been criticized as advancing a one-sided view of society, with its emphasis on consensus, cooperation and continuity in social life along with its seeming blindness to disagreement, conflict and change (Stryker, 2001). Finally, scholars have also criticized the traditional approach to role theory as rationalizing and reinforcing the existing social order (Stryker, 2001). Interactionist Approach

The interactionist approach to role theory arose from the symbolic interactionism perspective in sociology and as such gives importance to the roles of individual actors, the development of roles through social interaction, and the processes through which social actors understand and interpret their own and other people’s behavior (Biddle, 1986). Thus, this approach focuses on how roles emerge in social interactions and how individuals are able to influence behavioral expectations through social negotiation (Lynch, 2007).

Within this approach, a role is conceptualized as neither fixed nor prescribed, but rather, something that is continuously negotiated by persons in social interaction (Mead, 1934 as cited in Lynch, 2007; Blumer, 1969 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Using this approach to understand intimate partner violence therefore necessitates looking at how partners in a violent relationship interact with one another as well as how they, negotiate, take on, impose or reject specific roles.

In contrast to the traditional approach to role theory which highlights social systems and social structures, the interactionist approach emphasizes social processes such as communication, interpretation and negotiation (Lynch, 2007). Theorizing within this approach assumes that the relationship between personal, behavioral and social variables is reciprocal (Plummer, 1991 as cited in Lynch, 2007). As such, the interactionist role theory approach to xamining intimate partner violence will tend to focus on how partners communicate, interpret and negotiate particular issues in their relationship. As opposed to the traditional approach to role theory that posits the unidirectional influence of social structure on individual action, the interactionist approach opens up the possibility that personal and behavioral variables may influence social structural variables. For interactionist theorists, social actors interpret and enact their own roles by imagining the roles of others actors in the social interaction (Turner, 2001).

Thus, far from being automatons who take on roles mechanically, people are viewed as interpreting, negotiating and shaping their own roles to be able to interact effectively with other people who take on related roles (Turner, 2001). In this approach, analysis starts from an examination of the patterns of social interactions among individuals and groups of individuals (Turner, 2001). As such, research on intimate partner violence using this approach will look at the interpretative, negotiated and dynamic nature of violent interactions between partners. Some challenges to the interactionist approach to role theory have also been raised.

One of these challenges criticized the interactionist approach for failing to take into account the influence of social institutions and structural forces on the role enactment process (Lynch, 2007). Thus, little attention is given to the structural constraints that impinge on roles (Biddle, 1986). To illustrate, although intimate partner violence can be analyzed by studying the social interactions where violence occurs, it is also important to trace the occurrence of intimate violence to social structures that impose and influence the roles that people enact.

In addition, as the interactionist approach tends to focus on specific instances of social interactions, interactionist theorists sometimes fail to discuss the contextual limits of their assumptions (Biddle, 1986). Also, while the approach acknowledges the reciprocal relationship between personal, behavioral and social variables, it still fails to explain how these relationships feedback and affect succeeding role enactments (Lynch, 2007). Summary of Limitations of Two Main Approaches to Role Theory

In his work on proposing an integration between role theory and positioning theory, Henriksen (2008) cited important limitations of the two main approaches to role theory. These limitations represent a summary of the difficulties that are encountered when using the traditional structural-functional approach and the interactionist approach to understanding social phenomena such as intimate partner violence. On the one hand, the traditional structural-functional approach seems to ignore individual action and its influence on social structure (Henriksen, 2008).

Furthermore, a structural-functional approach to role theory also appears to be limited in examining the finer grains of social interaction (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999 as cited in Henriksen, 2008; Harre & Moghaddam, 2003 as cited in Henriksen, 2008). On the other hand, the interactionist approach appears to focus on social interactions, without taking into account the influence of social structures on the patterning and stability of such interactions. The interactionist approach has also been criticized for its limited attention to the social p of social interaction (Henriksen, 2008).

It is based on these limitations of role theory that we propose an integration of role theory with positioning theory, in view of providing a better understanding of intimate partner violence at the structural, interactional and discursive levels.

References

1. Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92. Brookes, K. , Davidson, P. M. , Daly, J. , & Halcomb, E. J. (2007). Role theory: A framework to investigate the community nurse role in contemporary health care systems. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 25 (1-2), 146-155.
2. Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57 (3), 228-243. Ellington, J. E. & Marshall, L. L. (1997). Gender role perceptions of women in abusive relationships. Sex Roles, 36 (5/6), 349-369. Fox, G. L. & Murry, V. M. (2000). Gender and families: Feminist perspectives and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1160-1172. Henriksen, T. D. (2008). Liquidating roles and crystallizing positioning: Investigating the road between positioning theory and role theory.
3. Moghaddam, R. Harre, and N. Lee (Eds. ), Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis (pp. 41-64). New York: Springer. Lynch, K. D. (2007). Modeling role enactment: Linking role theory and social cognition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37 (4), 379-399. Mangus, A. R. (1957). Role theory and marriage counseling. Social Forces, 35 (3), 200-209. Mihalic, S. W. & Elliot, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12 (1), 21-47. Stryker, S. (2001).
4. Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory and structural symbolic interactionism: The Road to Identity Theory. In J. H. Turner (ed. ), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 211-230). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Thomas, E. J. & Biddle, B. J. (1966). Basic concepts for the variables of role phenomena. In B. J. Biddle & E. J. Thomas (Eds. ), Role theory: concepts and research (pp. 51-65). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Turner, R. H. (2001). Role theory. In J. H. Turner (ed. ), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 233-254). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

“Positivism in Mexico was primarily and educational philosophy. It tried to break away with the colonial mentality and bring an intellectual emancipation so the modern Mexican mind could step into the future, free from the shackles of obscurantism, superstition and face the truths of science, order and progress. ” Evaluate this assessment of positivism in Mexico. How accurate is it? What does it mean by facing “the truths of science”? What kind of educational innovations did it argue for?

The Positive (and Negative) Truth about Mexican Positivism as a 19th Century Mexican Educational Reform Philosophy The assertion that: “Positivism in Mexico was primarily an educational philosophy. It tried to break away with the colonial mentality and bring an intellectual emancipation so the modern Mexican mind could step into the future, free from the shackles of obscurantism, superstition and face the truths of science, order and progress” (no source) is an accurate one.

Further, according to “Comparative Social Movements: Mexico and the United States”: The Mexican Positivists were a group of elite intellectuals and social scientists that provided guidance and advice to Porfirio Diaz, the dictator that controlled Mexico from 1878 through the eve of the Mexican Revolution in 1910. The cientificos [sic] emphasized the incorporation of Mexico into the modern world system. This was to be accomplished through suppression of the indigenous and mestizo [sic] aspects of he culture and promotion of Mexico’s “European” heritage.

The combination of economic liberalization and political authoritarianism was the hallmark of Mexican Positivism. (December 16, 2002) Philosophies of the founder of sociology, Auguste Compte (“Sociological Positivism”; Auguste Compte), as applied to 19th century Mexican society, i. e. , Mexican Positivism, offered (or imposed, depending on one’s viewpoint) educational and other innovations in the later 19th century and earliest years of the 20th (“The Porfiriato, 1876-1910”).

To those nationals who supported Mexican Positivism (and there were many), “The positivism of Auguste Comte promised progress, discipline, and morality, together with freedom from the tyranny of theology” (Hutto). Further, Mexican Positivism, derived as it was from Compte, emphasized the encouragement of, and a focus upon, scientific inquiry into ways of achieving national social progress measures, while still maintaining the established social order, e. . , a cornerstone Comptean ideal (Marti, “Positivism and Human Values: The Quest for a Social Ideal”, March 26, 1994). Mexican Positivism also espoused empirical, as opposed to abstract, definitions of and goals for social progress; as well as systematic strategies and methods for (as we would call it today) the continual improvement of society, or “Total Quality Management (TQM)” (“Social Positivism”; “August Compte”; “Sociology”).

Mexican-born social philosophers like Jose Vasconcelos and Antonio Caso, however, were comparatively abstract, non-scientific thinkers by comparison. They were, in that sense, both relatively non-Mexican Positivists; that is, each favored a more holistic, less systematic integration of philosophy, science, art, education into already inherent (instead of externally-imposed, European-based) social values (Salmeron; Marti; “Jose Vasconcelos”; “Antonio Caso”; “Auguste Compte”).

Vasconcelos, for example, was “in favour [sic] of the education of the masses and oriented the nation’s education efforts along secular, civic, and pan-American (americanista) lines” (Wikipedia). Vasconcelos’s ideals included, according to Salmeron (p. 267), the concept of: a living experimentalism in which concur, each one in its own function, the data of the senses, the rules of reason, the projects of the will, all in a harmony which engenders love.

The ambition to bring into concert all the resources by which consciousness disposes to relate itself to the world and to penetrate more profoundly its own depths [emphasis added]. As for Caso, who was in many ways (although in a more purely academic sense) (Salmoneda), echoed Vasconcelos’s ideological viewpoint: “Caso’s thought is a reaction against positivism, an affirmation of liberty, of Christian roots, based on the conviction that man is a spiritual reality which constitutes the culmination of nature. ” (Salmoneda, p. 67)

In comparison to Vasconcelos and Caso, Compte, the “Grandfather” (“Sociology”) of positivism as an integrated social philosophy (“Auguste Compte”) might have instead espoused the importance of a quantifiable “blueprint” for Mexican social progress and educational innovation. That, then, could then be empirically tested, and its results quantified and studied, e. g. , a “science of society” (“Auguste Compte”).

This would represent a systematic approach to measuring all areas of societal progress (or the lack of it), including education. Salmoneda; “Auguste Compte”; “Sociology”). Such an approach, Compte no doubt would argue, would help Mexico, a “backward” (i. e. non-European) nation, to now be able to “face the truths of science, order and progress” [whatever those were. They were most likely European truths, which Mexico and Mexicans, being “backward”, simply had not “caught on” to yet]. Mexican Positivism had an especially strong, active, and influential supporter in Gabino Barreda. Barreda clearly regarded Mexican Positivism much more favorably than did either Vasconcelos or Caso.

Perhaps this was due to his own (Paris-acquired) scientific and medical training, as well as his privileged social background (“The Porfiriato, 1876-1910″; Hutto; Marti. Positivism and Human Values: The Quest for a Social Ideal”, March 26, 1994). Barreda was an intellectual, with a predilection for outcomes based on logic; his major concern was the establishment of the sciences and logic as the basal philosophy of education. . . He considered positivist principles necessary in order to educate “a new elite to guide Mexico in the positive era” (Hale, 1989).

Curriculum was defined as “the encyclopedic learning of the sciences in an ordered hierarchy” hat would establish an intellectual order capable of preventing anarchy in all its forms, and thereby lead to the moral regeneration of society (Hale, 1989). Mexican positivism, embodied in the slogan “order and progress,” was the backbone of the modernization scheme supported by the cientificos, intellectual followers of Barreda. Led by Jose Ives Limantour, who served as adviser to Diaz, the cientificos developed a plan for economic recovery that was to be carried out through the next twenty-seven years of the Porfiriato. “The Porfiriato, 1876-1910”)

Mexican Positivism, then, indeed “tried to break away with the colonial mentality and bring an intellectual emancipation so the modern Mexican mind could step into the future, free from the shackles of obscurantism, superstition and face the truths of science, order and progress” (no source). Since the impetus for it came from a European movement, though, rather than from one that sprang from within the movement itself, the efforts of Mexican Positivism were met with mixed enthusiasm within Mexico itself, and also with mixed results.

FK8R 34 Sociology A: Introduction to Sociology Alisha Walsh In the mid 1800’s, French author Auguste Comte came up with the term “sociology”. Although previous philosophers, historians and political thinkers had studied and tried to make sense of their societies, this was when it began to develop as a distinctive science. Comte grew up in a time of great social and political upheaval. As the world rapidly changed, he and others began to study the societies they lived in.

He sought to create a science of society that could explain the laws of the social world just as science explained the functioning of the physical world. (Giddens 2006:11) Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century political revolutions occurring throughout Europe, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution all lead to previously unseen changes in many societies. The French Revolution of 1789 meant that monarchs of Europe came under severe scrutiny. Subjects began to question their “divine right” to rule.

Ideas of individuals’ rights and their say in how society was run emerged. Political parties and social reform quickly followed. Great scientific discoveries formed a perspective of looking to science and reason to answer questions about the natural and social world. People were turning away from the church, religion and superstition for these answers. The Industrial Revolution 1780-1800 had a profound effect on Britain and laterally Europe. Almost all aspects of life were changed as people became part of the factory system.

People moved from rural areas and agricultural jobs to towns where social life was more impersonal and anonymous. They began to work by a clock instead of the rhythms of the season. Traditional values and roles were dropped as new ones evolved. To study Sociology, one must have what C. Wright Mills called a “sociological imagination”. Sociological thinking and imagination requires us to remove ourselves from our everyday lives and experience, and look at them differently. Only then can we realise that individual experience can actually reflect larger issues.

He emphasised the difference between “personal troubles of millue” and “public issues of social structure”(Mills 2000 :5) This means that the sociological imagination allows us to see that public issues such as war, marriage, the economy, urbanisation etc, can affect the individual as well as personal circumstance and experiences. “The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two. That is its task and its promise. ”(Mills 2000:2) He stated that sociologists must ask three crucial questions: What is the structure of this particular society?

Where does this society stand in human history? What varieties of men and women prevail in this society and in the coming period? (Mills 200:3) He believed that as individuals these questions would help us make sense of our own place and experience in the society we live in and identify its structures and characteristics. He also stated that “they are the questions inevitably raised by any mind possessing the sociological imagination. For that imagination is the capacity to shift form one perspective to another”.

The sociological imagination allows us to be analytical and critical of the world and to look at the bigger picture. There are many sociological theories which attempt to explain how society works. They provide a framework for explaining social behaviour. They find the relation between individuals, groups and society. These theories can be put into two broad categories, macro theories and micro theories. Macro theories such as Functionalism and Marxism look to explaining behaviour through the notion of social structures and look at society holistically.

Macro theories tend to use quantitive research when a social theory or model is being explored. Data has to be measurable and proccessed mathematically (surveys) to provide unbiased results that can be measured, compared and related to large parts of society (Amit B. Marvasti 2004:7). Micro theories such as social action and symbolic interaction look at individual behaviour and how small scale interactions shape society. Micro theories use qualitive research methods, concentrating on smaller groups but providing more detailed analysis and descriptions of human experience.

The experiment can be based around a theory and results are recorded as detailed, narrative descriptions as opposed to numerical codes found in quantitive research (Amit B. Mavasti 2004:10) Functionalism analyses how social structures explain behaviour. Interdependent parts of society have to function together to create a whole system. Biological or mechanical analogies are often used. Functionalism emphasises integration, harmony, stability and continuity. It is a positive perspective that views even tragedies or inequality as serving a function in society. McClelland2001:1) It looks at society as a whole and is good at explaining the persistence of social phenomena (anomie). Marxism also focuses on social structures but is a conflict theory. Society is made up of infrastructure and superstructure. This structure is based on the inequality of distribution of production and causes conflict. It recognises different power interests in groups and is good at explaining conflict and change ( SparkNotes Editors 2006). Social Action theory emphasises the intentional behaviour of individuals as the cause of social structure.

Individuals shape society as a result of intentional individual or group interaction. It concentrates on the meaning of social behaviour and its interpretation by others and is good at explaining small scale interactions. According to Anthony Giddens , good sociology must examine both social structures and social interactions. It is how a fuller understanding of social life is achieved (Giddens2005:25). Socialization, Social order and Social Stratification are three key concepts in sociology that try to explain the relationship between the individual and society.

Social order is the way in which societies’ basic requirements are met to exist, how peace and order is maintained. It is obtained formally through laws and through the use of social norms, roles and values. It involves a set of linked structures, institutions and practices that can maintain and enforce conformity and social order (Dr Almog 1998). Functionalist theory views individuals as contributing to social order by happily playing out their occupied roles within social institutions. These roles are guided by the norms and values we learn through socialization and are necessary for society to function (Dr Almog 1998).

Marxist theory claims that social order is forced on the individual, norms and values are used by institutions that want to maintain capitalism. They are a way to control the working class (Giddens 2006: 301-302). Social Action theory sees social order as a product of social interactions, symbolic meanings and how they are interpreted by others. The individual is a social actor who will interpret and process social stimuli and makes choices accordingly. Socialization is a lifelong learning process and plays a crucial part in forming our identities. It is the process by which individuals learn the culture of their society” (Haralambos & Holborn 2008:3). The important stage of socialization occurs during infancy. The child learns many basic behaviour patterns of its society by responding to the approval or disapproval of their parents and also by copying their example. In western societies, the educational system, religion, the mass media, the occupational group and peer groups are also important in the socialisation process ( Haralambos & Holbor2008:3).

Functionalist theory believes that socialisation reinforces the social structure and maintains society. That it is functional and beneficial to social order. It transfers culture, norms and values to new generations and integrates individuals into society. It is the social glue that holds society together and helps create a sense of harmony and cooperation (Kent McClelland 2001). Marxism sees socialization as one of the most effective tools of the Bourgeoisie.

It legitimises existing social inequalities and prepares the individual for a class related role they will fill indefinitely (SparkNotes Editors 2006). Social Action theory believes socialization is relevant in relation to symbols and their interpretation, the development of social identity and the small scale interactions that shape it. Socialisation helps maintain social order (Cardiff University 2010). Social Stratification is the ranking and ordering of individuals within a society. It is a structured hierarchy which leads to divisions and higher status, wealth and privilege for some groups.

Social class is the stratification system found in modern industrial societies like the UK, but it can also occur due to other attributes such as gender, age, religious education or military rank (Giddens 2006:295) Members of a particular strata will share a similar lifestyle and common identity which will to some extent distinguish them from members of other social strata (H & H 2008:19) A functionalist perspective of social stratification is that it is based on meritocracy and is therefore an inevitable part of all societies.

Talcott Parsons believed that social stratifications are a basic expression of shared values which are an essential part of a functioning society. Social stratification is functional because it integrates various groups in society (H& H2008:21) Marxism regards stratification as a divisive structure rather than an integrated one. It is seen as a mechanism for the ruling class to exploit the subject class, rather than a means of furthering collective goals (H & H 2008:27). Various institutions such as legal and political systems are used to dominate the subject class resulting in conflict (H & H 2008:28).

Social action theory focuses on how a persons’ social standing affects their everyday interactions. According to Max Webber, social stratification not only involves class but also status and party (social status and political power) (Giddens 2006:302-303). Social action theory studies the processes behind stereotypes, mixed interactions and labelling. Its notes how stratification is a way to put people in groups and questions how much power individuals in these groups have to realise their goals (Cardiff University 2010) References

Haralambos & Holborn (2008) Sociology Themes and Perspectives , 7th Edition, London, Harper Collins Anthony Giddens (2006) Sociology, 5th Edition, Cambridge, Polity Press Amit B. Mavasti (2004) Qualititive Research in Sociology, London, Sage Publications Ltd C. Wright Mills (2000) The Sociological Imagination, 40th Edition, New York , Oxford University Press Inc World Wide Web Page Kent McClelland, Grinnel College 2001 Functionalism (Online) Available: web. grinnel. edu/courses/soc/s00/soc111-01/IntroTheories/Functionalism. tml SparkNotes Editors 2006 Sparknote on Sociology Major Figures (Online) Available: http://www. sparknotes. com/sociology/major-figures/ (Acceseed 31 October 2012) Dr Oz Almog, Electronic Journal of Sociology 1998 The Problem of Social Type: A Review (Online) Available:www. sociology. org/content/vol003. 004/almog. html (Accessed 31 October 2012) Angus Bancroft and Sionead Rogers, Cardiff University 2010 Max Weber-Natural Science, Social Science and Value Relevance (Online) http://www. cf. ac. uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/weber6. html

Madeline LaRossa October 24, 2012 C07789454 Potential Outcomes of Progress: Orwell’s 1984 1) Summary of the Book 1984 is an eye-opening novel written by George Orwell. Orwell wrote the novel in 1949 to outline how he projected society would be in 1984 if progress continued upon its current track. Orwell published the book as a warning that society must be careful about progress for progress’s sake, or conditions could end up similar to the way society is in his work 1984. The novel is divided into three chapters, or books, each with multiple subunits, and these sections tell the story in chronological order.

The book ends with an appendix on the principles of newspeak, the new language of Oceania. The novel follows Winston Smith’s experiences in London in 1984. Smith is a low-ranking member of “the Party,” the all-controlling ruling entity of their county Oceania. The Party (represented by Big Brother) has telescreens (two-way microphones and cameras) and spies everywhere with the purpose of finding and snuffing out anyone who is not fully and unquestioningly devoted to the Party.

The citizens of Oceania are not allowed to own their own property, are not allowed any privacy (even in their thoughts), are not encouraged to have sexual desires, are forced to live under strict rations in constant wartimes, and are forced to alter their memories and records as The Party sees fit. The book focuses on Smith’s secret disobedience of the Party; he thinks he joins an underground resistance movement However, he is eventually captured and tortured into honest belief of everything that the Party and Big Brother claim and represent. 2) Summary of the Chapters

The beginning of the first chapter takes place in April of 1984 and introduces the reader to the book’s protagonist, Winston Smith. Smith is coming home to his dilapidated apartment building (ironically called “Victory Mansions”) and reflects both on his troublesome varicose ulcer and on the large posters plastered everywhere, all advertising the same blown-up face and stating “Big Brother is Watching You. ” The reader learns that although Smith is a low-ranking member of the Party, he is still under their oppressive control. Smith enters his apartment and sits in the alcove in his oom hidden from the telescreen; he proceeds to commit “thoughtcrime” by writing his true feelings against the Party in his secret diary. In the second and third parts of the chapter, Winston reflects on how there are spies everywhere searching for thoughtcrime and how a parent’s own child will turn him in. Winston thinks about his childhood and how the Party has falsified historical records as they saw fit, even though Winston is not allowed to acknowledge or even be having these thoughts. Winston also reflects on a man named O’Brien, with whom he works and whom he suspects may also secretly question the Party as he does.

In the middle of the first chapter, Smith goes to his job at the Party, where he falsifies old records in order to account for the Party constantly switching war enemies and eliminating questioning citizens. While at work, Winston hears an announcement from The Party stating that they are increasing rations, when Winston really knows that they are decreasing them. Winston observes how everyone believes this unquestioningly, but then wonders if he has given himself away when he realizes that a dark-haired woman has been watching him.

When he goes home, Smith writes in his diary about how he would love to have a steamy sexual affair because the Party discourages sex for any means other than reproduction. In the close of the first chapter, Smith writes in his diary about how any hope for rebellion lies in the “proles,” the lowest class in Oceania, and a rumored secretive resistance group called “The Brotherhood. ” Smith considers how bad the conditions are that everyone lives in, but then realizes that no one has any previous better conditions to compare it to, thanks to the Party altering all historical records.

He writes about how he once had concrete evidence that the Party was lying about the past, and he repeats his suspicion that O’Brien shares his sentiments towards the Party. Winston eventually walks into the proles’ district and sneaks into a forbidden shop to buy a paperweight, a relic from the past. As he is leaving the store, he realizes that the same dark-haired girl is watching him and believes that she is a spy for the thought police, and that he has surely been found out and will be eliminated. The second chapter starts with the dark-haired girl slipping Smith a note at work saying that she loves him.

The two eventually make secret plans to meet far out in the country, and Smith learns that her name is Julia. The two eventually do meet and have sex hidden out in the countryside, simply for the purpose of pleasure and defying the Party. Julia and Smith then return to their respective homes, thinking themselves undiscovered. Smith then rents a room above the shop where he previously bought the paperweight. Julia and Smith meet in the room whenever possible to have sex and share in the contraband food and drink they are able to obtain.

As the citizens prepare for a large political movement supporting Oceania in its ever-going war, O’Brien makes contact with Smith and arranges a secret meeting between the two, confirming Smith’s suspicions about O’Brien’s disloyalty to the Party. Winston and Julia continue to meet in the room above the shop, and eventually, the two go together to meet O’Brien at his home. O’Brien turns off his telescreen (as he can do this since he is an upper-Party member) and enlists Smith and Julia in The Brotherhood’s secret efforts to overthrow the Party.

O’Brien tells them that he will arrange to have The Brotherhood’s book of missions and truths delivered to Smith, and then bids them on their way. Smith does acquire the book, and the chapter ends with Smith and Julia reading it in their rented room. The book uncovers all of the Party’s lies and lectures on the Party’s ever-increased desire for complete control over all. The next morning, Julia and Smith realize that they have been found out by the Party’s thought police; the two are cornered in their room and restrained into custody. The last chapter opens with Smith locked up in the Ministry of Love, one of the Party’s three departments.

Smith is originally still hopeful for the Brotherhood, but he then sees O’Brien there working for the Party; Smith realizes that O’Brien has actually been an undercover member of the Party’s thought police the whole time, and that the Brotherhood has never actually existed. O’Brien begins to torture Smith, trying to impress The Party’s ideals and principles into Smith. Smith initially resists, but after weeks of torture, he yields on all aspects of the Party and its teachings except for one: Smith still refuses to betray his feelings for Julia.

Smith is transferred to more comfortable quarters in the department and is content for a while, until he accidentally reveals his prevailing love for Julia. O’Brien brings Smith to the infamous “Room 101,” where everyone is tortured with his or her worst fear. There, Smith is threatened with rats that will slowly eat him, so he finally renounces his love for Julia. At the very end of the last chapter, the story leaps to when Smith has been released back into society. Smith now honestly believes in everything that the Party does and represents and he respects them whole-heartedly.

He runs into Julia by chance, but they both are now different people and go their separate ways. Smith eventually has a fleeting memory of his childhood but quickly dismisses it as a false memory, congratulating himself on his victory over himself and his unquestioning love for Big Brother. An appendix follows the last chapter of the book, explaining some of the vocabulary and grammatical structures of Oceania’s official language, New-speak. 3) Relation Between the Book and Class Materials Orwell’s 1984 holds great relevance to the topics we have recently covered in class.

First of all, 1984 references, on several occasions, then tendency for people to get drawn into mass sentiments, doing things without knowing why they are doing them. In class, we referred to this as “collective behavior,” and defined it as “behavior that doesn’t involve that deliberate interpretation—instead we just get swept up and act as others are acting” (Weinstein, 2012). As an example, we discussed how people get swept up at a basketball game and react favorably simply because everyone around them is doing so, without specifically thinking about or analyzing it.

We talked about how this can also lead to “circular reaction,” when a person reacts off of the person next to them, and then the person next to them reacts based on the original person, and so on, leading to amplification of the original reaction. 1984 touches on this concept several times. Early in the novel, the character Smith reflects on something called “the Two Minutes Hate,” in which everyone gathers once a day and simply hates and yells out against Oceania’s wartime enemy.

Smith realizes that the mass hysteria of everyone around him can even change his own sentiments momentarily, as Orwell writes, “At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, like a rock against the hordes of Asia. . . ” (Orwell 15). Later on in the book, Smith talks about how the uneducated Proles get swept up into moments of blind patriotism without really knowing or understanding what they are rooting for.

Smith notices that “The poles, normally apathetic about the war, were being lashed into one of their periodical frenzies of patriotism” and realizes that the upper Party encourages this behavior in many slick ways, including propaganda and mind control (Orwell 149). Orwell yet again wants us to understand the dangers of this behavior as he writes “Times beyond number, at Party rallies and spontaneous demonstrations, she [Julia] had shouted at the top of her voice for the execution of people whose names she had never heard and in whose supposed crimes she had not the faintest belief” (Orwell 152).

Orwell impresses upon the reader the importance of fighting this mindless behavior since this mindlessness can be very dangerous. We discussed in lecture how historically, people have often gotten swept up into mindless bureaucracy, doing things simply because everyone else is or because it is what they are used to doing or are told to do. We talked about how dangerous this could be— it can allow a bureaucracy to gain much more power than it ever should be able to, since its citizens do not question the things that the government does and implements, as occurs in 1984.

Secondly, the attributes of progress and the ways technology influences it play a large role both in 1984 and in our class discussions. Early on in the work, 1984 overlaps some of the topics we have covered in class as Orwell references some of the various ways that “progress” is exhibited in a society; Orwell writes, “The Party claimed, for example, that today forty per cent of adult proles were literate; before the Revolution, it was said, the number had only been fifteen per cent.

The Party claimed that the infant mortality rate was now only a hundred and sixty per thousand, whereas before the Revolution it had been three hundred. . . ” (Orwell 74). Just as Orwell uses factors such as literacy rates and infant mortality rates to measure progress in society, we also learned in class that these can be important indicators of how a society is changing, as well as death rates and other statistics. Similar to how we learned in class that progress just for progress’s sake must be discouraged as it can lead to detrimental results, Orwell is warning against this very occurrence all through 1984.

More specifically, Orwell warns against the dangers of excessive technological advancements: “Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen. . . partly because scientific and technical progress depend on the empirical habit of thought. . . As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago” (Orwell 189).

Orwell later warns that technology can indeed ruin our private lives by allowing us to be constantly watched and submitted to endless propaganda. The character Smith reflects upon this when he says “Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda. . . The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time” (Orwell 206).

We discussed this very possibility in class when we talked about how citizens of today’s society are created technology that is smarter than us, and about how dangerous this could be towards the safety of our society in the case of a technological revolt. Professor Weinstein also pointed out how excessive technology can make it even easier for government can control us and gain power excessively; he pointed out that the government could be watching us right now through the webcams on our laptops and listening to us through our phones.

Additionally, both our class lectures and 1984 reference aspects of a class system and a hierarchal society. First of all, when we discussed in class the characteristics of a bureaucracy, we talked about the concept of ascribed versus achieved statuses. We learned that in the family setting, a status is ascribed—a person is born into their position. However, in a bureaucracy such as that present in 1984, a status is instead something that must be worked for and earned—it is an achieved status. 1984 touches on this in the secret Brotherhood’s book, as the book lectures “In principle, membership in these three groups is not hereditary.

The child of Inner Party parents is in theory not born into the Inner Party. Admission to either branch of the Party is by examination, taken at the age of sixteen” (Orwell 208). In lecture, we learned that since statuses are achieved in a bureaucracy instead of ascribed, the power of the status is held by the position itself, not the person that holds the position. In other words, we learned that in a bureaucracy, a person is simply filling a role that could be filled by anyone; if a person dies or no longer wishes to hold their position, it can quickly be filled by another person.

People, or a policeman, for example, only hold power because of their uniform and job, not because of who they are on a personal, individual level. 1984 also teaches this concept; at one point, Julia is expressing how happy she is to finally escape her generic job position in the Party and instead simply be an individual woman as she exclaims, “In this room I’m going to be a woman, not a Party comrade” (Orwell 142). 4) Relation Between the Book and a Personal Experience 1984 and its teachings hold close relation to a personal experience I recently had.

Last week, I had a huge assignment that I was trying to do for one of my classes. I settled in to start working on the paper, but then my phone rang. I picked up because it was my mother, and I ended up involved in a thirty minute conversation. I eventually hung up with my mother and returned to the paper, but soon after, I heard someone start talking to me from my computer! I soon realized that I had accidentally left my video messaging on on my computer, behind the screen on which I was writing the paper, and one of my friends had seen that I was online and started video chatting me.

Since she had started the conversation, I was then obligated to hold a conversation with her in order to not be rude. All the while, I was distracted from working on my assignment. Once we finished talking and I turned off my chat program, I was tempted to check my email before I got back to my paper, but I realized that if I did, I may indeed never get to my paper. This showed me that technology certainly can be dangerous towards progress, not only on a large societal scale, but also as far as the simple task of writing my paper.

All of the means of technology that my friends were using to contact me were simply invading my privacy while I was trying to concentrate and have a private evening to do an assignment. Reading 1984 only supported and increased my awareness of how distracting technology can be, and how dangerous and detrimental it can actually be in the grand scheme of progress. 5) Critique of the Novel 1984 has many positive aspects. I really enjoyed how Orwell used a fictional situation to teach readers and warn them against dangerous conditions rather than simply lecturing the readers about what they should and should not be doing.

I liked this because even though a lecture-style presentation of material teaches important concepts, I feel that putting these concepts into a theoretical story helps the reader to remember the concepts and understand how they can be practically applied in real life. Although the ending is sad for the reader (as it extinguishes all hope that anyone could hold out against the Party’s mind control and excessive practices), I liked it because I thought it was important to drive Orwell’s teachings home.

I felt that this ending was necessary because through the way things ended, Orwell showed that if society continued as it was in 1949, conditions would eventually get so bad that even the smartest individuals would not be able to undermine and revolt against the political entity, and there would be no hope. I feel that this was necessary because it shows just how important it was that people altered the path down which society was headed. I am hard-pressed to find anything that I dislike about Orwell’s work.

At some points during the first half of the book, I wondered if Orwell’s long and detailed description of the conditions and unspoken rules of Oceania was really necessary, but as I read farther in the book, I realized that all of the descriptions were indeed necessary so that the reader would fully understand and grasp all of the terrors that were in store if society’s current track was not derailed. All in all, I really enjoyed this book, and it helped me to further understand many concepts that we discussed in lecture.

When it was published in 1949, 1984 was, and remains as such now, an eye-opening warning of the way our lives will change if we ever allow our society and government to run away with itself by striving for progress simply for progress’s sake. Citations Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Penguin Group, 1949. Weinstein, Jay. Class Lecture. The Components of Change. University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 9 October 2012. Weinstein, Jay. Class Lecture. The Engines of Change. University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 16 October 2012.

A French philosopher and writer, Pierre Bourdieu ( Bourdieu et al. 1990) claims that sociological factors such as education, family background, cultural development of an individual as well as one”s belonging to a specific social class, plays a vital part in interpretation and participation in the Arts. In order to evaluate this argument and make any logical conclusions, it must therefore be examined through evidence which in this case will be referring to an Australian artist, Robert Klippel.

Every artist”s career has a ‘shape” or a development which tends to be greatly affected by sociological factors which influence the life of that artist”. (Hughes 1964: 2). Robert Klippel”s career ‘shape” was also a subject to formation which was promoted by factors such as education, family upbringing and background as well as the outer and inner environments which affected the life development of the artist. It is thus essential to consider these factors as they influenced and formatted Klippel”s artistic vocation and career.

Robert Klippel was born in Sydney, 19 of June 1920, in a middle class family and became the econd in a family of three sons. His father had emigrated from Poland in 1904 and ran a successful business importing and distributing clothing and textiles. His mother, of English background, had been brought up in ‘English fashion”, educated well and expected to devote herself to marriage and the family. Klippel”s father attended university where he studied philosophy and took an Art theory course. During university years, he developed an interest in the Arts. From time to time he would visit an Art gallery or buy an expensive classical painting.

Robert Klippel”s, mother had a passion for classical music and would often visit the opera. However, at that time Robert Klippel had little interest in education in the Arts and was not affected by the artistic family environment around him. Although, Klippel”s parents were educated well, Robert Klippel and his brothers were not encouraged to learn or participate in the arts as Klippel”s parents thought that their children should go ‘their own ways”, it could even be said that they were brought up by the ‘a light hand”- always given opportunities to make their own choices and decisions in life.

When referring back to Bourdieu and his argument, it could be argued that even though Klippel”s parents were educated well and may have had a reasonable understanding of the arts, they would not be one “of refined classification” and certainly would “lack a mastered degree of artistic competence”(Bourdieu et al. 1990:42) as they could not fully value the importance of education and pass on to their children. However this idea may not apply in this case, as Robert Klippel himself was not affected by his family”s level of education and from the yearly years led an independent lifestyle.

Particularly during his youth, Klippel had little interest in any sort of education and with little direction from his parents, he preferred to work on the mill, spent little time doing his school work and became used to fail many examinations. At one time, Klippel even thought that his life was doomed to be a ‘failure”. Klippel”s family was quite financially stable and all the three sons attended secondary school including Klippel himself, who had a careless approach towards education and found that it was not for him. In fact he did not receive any art education or learn much of what he later became interested in.

He describes his school years being: ‘uneventful and a waste of time”(Gleeson 1983 :4). However it was during his early schoo years that Klipple developed a passion for sculpture. Robert Klippel”s early life was mostly spent around Sydney Harbour where lived and first became fascinated with ships and boat models. As a young boy, Klippel began making miniature model ships that he often saw on the harbour or in books. An obsessive commitment to model making lasted almost eighteen years which later led to becoming a sculptor. Klippel entered the navy during WWII, where he obtained a job as a model maker.

Between 1943 and 1945 he produced many military vessels and aircraft models. The skills developed during this period were vital for Klippel as a sculptor; “he gained knowledge of volume, mass, proportion and structural detail”(Scarlett 1980: 9). Above all, he acquired a strong desire to find out how things worked which further helped him with his creative process. Klippel obtained some practical skills to be used in his artworks but when referring back to Bourdieu, he had no knowledge of ‘artistic principles” or understanding of theoretical Arts and thus had no ‘means of appropriating works of art”.

This also reflected that Klippel had a lack of artistic ideas and inspirations to produce his works although he had a strong desire to make sculptures. “At twenty-four Klippel was still largely unconcerned with the difference between art and craft: he simply did not care about it and had never visited a gallery”(Hughes 1964:12) Klippel was not exposed to any higher education and he finished high-school with poor grades as he spent most of the time working with wool.

He took a wool classing course in 1937 with the support of his father who thought that Klippel would be working with wool as he did not see any other pportunities for his son. However, Klippel himself decided to no longer work with wool and to devote more time to his sculptures as he discovered his passion for Art. The year of 1943 became a turning point for Klippel, as he met a friend Pam Broad, who was a poet and an intellectual, and encouraged Klippel to take up a wood-carving course which taught him how to develop his own designs and models.

Pam Broad was appreciative of Klippel”s skill but criticised his lack of originality and knowledge of art. Klippel realised that in order to become a sculptor he would eed to have certain knowledge of the Arts and Pam Broad introduced him to literature, poetry and art as abstract, which Klippel became later involved in. Robert Klippel gradually began to gain artistic appreciation and knowledge of Art and he also found the critical difference between art and craft.

Klippel realised that he could now interpret and produce artworks and meanings in ways that before were unknown to him and as Bourdieu states: “interpretation… is always constituted by the learning ability … in other words discovering meaning using our literary knowledge” (Bourdieu et al. 1990). Klippel put aside his models and began to read and study art books to gain knowledge about art. Pam Broad introduced him to the work of Brzeska, and he read books on Henry Moore and Roger Fly; “The intellectual discovery of art as a creative pursuit awakened a passion he hardly knew existed”(Watters Gallery 1970:3).

By 1945 Klippel has decided that art would be his vocation and that he would become a sculptor. In 1946 he enrolled full time at the East Sydney Technical College to study antique drawing, life modelling and sculpture. During this time Klippel became inspired by nature which became a source of ideas for the sculptor and he noted n his diary that: “Thinking a lot about nature and its workings, I believe and artist should, when creating, undergo a similar process which occurs when nature creates”(Gleeson1983:4).

Although not having received ‘complete” education, Robert Klippel was able to use his skills to produce his models and he found that the knowledge he received himself and with the help of others was extremely useful for his art creation. Referring back to Bourdiue, who stressed the importance of learning and defined the idea of education as “having a complex code”, which refers to sophistication and ability to distinguish a ork of art in a more refined way, it could be noted that Klippel has gradually achieved this ability through self-education and continuos learning throughout his career.

However here the theory of sophistication, family education could not apply as Klippel did not achieve high level of education and obtained valuable qualifications but instead gained self-knowledge which was not perhaps one of ‘fine refinement” but which provided him with a stable base to develop his career. It could be considered that Bourdieu”s theory of education does apply to those with a enuine interest in the Arts and to those who wish to gain precise knowledge of the Arts. Klippel himself realised that his self-discovery of new visions and ideas as well as artistic knowledge helped him with his artistic development.

Klippel further developed an interest in abstract art and decided to move to London where he commenced his studies at Slade School of Art. Here he developed his skills as a draftsman, “which he felt were sorely lacking” (Sturgeon 1978:15). For six months at the Slade School Klippel led a double life. On one hand, he did his formal studies, which he “hated and found rrelevant” (Scarlett 1980:6), on the other hand, he pursued an independent self-development course in which he concentrated on studying abstract art derived from nature.

Learning in Klippel”s opinion was not always a constant necessity and brought use to his work, unlike Bourdieu claims that learning at school and university is essential to develop not only the knowledge but also have access to ‘appropriate culture”. Klippel disregarded culture and education as a means of achieving success but to him art was about self-expression combined with the required artistic knowledge. In 1945 Klippel has constructed the largest and most important of his sculptures and since then he decided to work alone and to no longer have a formal education.

An Australian surrealist painter, James Gleeson became a vital individual who influenced Klippel”s career development, he encouraged Klippel to leave Slade School and to work on his own. Gleeson introduced Klippel to surrealism and organised Klippel”s first exhibition in London which they shared together. Klippel found that he had developed an obsession to make art that stemmed from his own life and reflected the world around him as he wrote: “The artist can show a new world, if he ees and feels enough”( Hughes1964:9).

During this period Klippel became financially unstable as the support coming from his father was at an end, as Klippel”s father strongly believed that his children should be able to support themselves in their adult life. Klippel went through a particularly difficult psychological period feeling unstable both emotionally and financially when he could not sell any of his sculptures. Klippel”s works were often rejected as they often classified as ‘self-reflection works” which often reflected the emotional and problematic side of the artist.

Klippel was also under pressure from his family, particularly his brothers who had a successful wool business and who financially aided Klippel as he could not provide for himself. Klippel travelled to Paris in hope of selling his works and spent a few months there creating more sculptures relating to nature. He found a studio where he worked and was able to diverse the scope of his ideas so that his works would have a wider meaning and perhaps more people could find appreciation in his works.

While living in Paris, Robert Klippel married an American artist, Nina Mermey and decided to travel to New York with her, which he later realised was wasted time” as he could not find any workshops or studios to work in. Again here he was bound to make money on his work but not having achieved that Klippel returned to Sydney. Klippel”s path here was now open to any direction and James Gleeson introduced him to a more comprehensive surrealism which Klippel wished to explore. He re-married in Sydney and in 1966 he established his first workshop.

For the first time, his works became appreciated by a large number of artists and art critics. The financial situation became better as some of Klippel”s sculptures were sold. With James Gleeson, another exhibition was held which presented painted landscape by Gleeson occupied by Klippel”s metal objects, it achieved a wide recognition by many fellow artists and the public for the first time. Robert Klippel had many more exhibitions and finally achieved the success he has been striving for since youth.

However when looking back at Bourdieu and his theories, it is worth to consider the effect class and position in society had on the artists overall recognition. Bourdieu associates upper class as having “good taste” as those from higher classes usually relate themselves with an academic institution” and may relate to the Arts, rather then those from lower classes tend to have little or no understanding of Art and in conclusion have no taste, he also relates class to culture, the higher the class the more cultured an individual could be.

This view can partially describe Robert Klippel”s life as he comes from a well educated and culturally developed family but not belonging to an ‘academic institution” as described by Bourdieu. Klippel was fairly distant from any art education during his youth and did not attend university while he did poorly at school. Perhaps the lack of direction from his parents and lack of his desire for education resulted in some instability experienced later in his life.

Perhaps as a result of that, Klippel had trouble finding a place in the society as an artist as he often felt ‘out of place” with his artistic ideas which for a long period of time received no appreciation. According to Bourdieu, Klippel”s art and his life would be a result of his family social position and cultural atmosphere as well as his own academic achievements. It could be agreed that these factors have had an influence on the artist”s life to some extent. Klippel had few minor cademic achievements compared to his brothers and mostly spent time doing agricultural work.

Klippel”s parents exposed their children to art and classical music as they thought that right cultural upbringing was essential to achieve social recognition and success, however, they saw that Robert Klippel had little interest in education and had no hope for him to achieve any academic success, so they allowed him to work on the mill and later with wool. This family upbringing affected Klippel”s life and resulted in his struggle to achieve success and later Klippel himself understood the importance of education and cultural upbringing to achieve

Robert Klippel once said that: “true art arises from inner spiritual necessity and an ability to follow one”s own convictions”. Robert Klippel is known today as one of Australia”s leading assemblage sculptors, he has created an innovative and extensive body of three-dimensional works over a fifty year period. For a long of time, Klippel was not recognised as an artist and he underwent a difficult psychological period throughout the development of his career. However, gradually, Klippel began to understand the influence various sociological factors had on his life.

He resumed his studies of Art, tried to market his own works to gain finance and finally became aware of what ‘it takes” to achieve success and recognition. One therefore, after examining the career of the artist, can never wonder as to why so many of Robert Klippel”s works are often a reflection of his own life and his long struggle to overcome the many barriers that he faced as Thus, in conclusion it would be faire to agree with Bourdieu”s views that sociological factors such family background, education, class and social position, have an influence on one”s interpretation and participation in the Arts.