MSO 001 SOLVED ASSIGNMENT 2021-22

 MSO 001 Sociological Theories and Concepts Solved Assignment 2021-22

All MSO 001 Sociological Theories and Concepts Solved Assignment 2021-22 available here , students can get all their assignments in free of cost. It helps students to get more marks.

Answer any five questions selecting at least two from each of the sections.

Your answers should be in about 500 words each.

Section-I

 1. Discuss the contribution of Levi-Strauss and Edmund Leach to the understanding of social structure.

ANSWER - IN THE LAST year or so Levi-Strauss has become a kind of cult. For Americans his structural anthropology is new, brilliant, maybe even a way out of the jumble of inexplicable data collected over the years by social science. But a more important part of his appeal is his brashness. Levi-Strauss is a theorist attempting to discover in the materials of culture the universal structures of the human mind. His objectives are just that large, and one senses he may be already part of the way there.

But for traditional anthropologists Levi-Strauss is a problem. He doesn't observe their rules-rather than empirical investigations and an emphasis on the behavioral act, LeviStrauss has evolved a formula for cultural analysis that centers on linguistic structures. He goes beyond the observable, and no longer takes as given symbolic meanings, communication and the structure of understanding.

Most Anglo-American criticisms of structural anthropology attack the nature of its evidence. Levi-Strauss's most energetic critic, David Maybury-Lewis, points to inconsistencies, even manipulations of traditional ethnographic data to fit the structural schema. But Levi-Strauss would argue the definitions of social fact must be reevaluated. The functionalist anthropologist's notion that social fact is simply observable social action is too narrow. Structural anthropology expands the definition by trying to observe societies at both their conscious and unconscious levels.

But regardless of the debate over evidence, it must be recognized that Levi-Strauss has made a major, perhaps pivotal, contribution to the way we perceive the world. The implications of structuralism outside anthropology are only beginning to be explored. What is needed most right now is not more obscure criticism of obscure ethnographic details, but a clearer understanding of what Levi-Strauss is trying to say.

Edmund Leach's Claude Levi-Strauss has been published this year in the Modern Masters series that includes works on Wittgenstein, Marcuse, Guevara, Chomsky, Joyce and others. Concerned primarily with bringing together some of the major themes in contemporary thought, the series (edited by Frank kermonde) has been written by scholars for the general reader.

Leach has been a critic of structural anthropology for nearly twenty years and under Levi-Strauss's influence developed his own theories of structural analysis. His book is concise and summarizes when possible, but it is not a popularization-he remains honest to the complexities of Levi-Strauss. Blending the old and new anthropology in his approach to structuralism, Leach presents Levi-Strauss as a uniquely important if not over-zealous, thinker.

STRUCTURALISM is best introduced by examining the social theories outside anthropology that shaped Levi-Strauss's early development. Both Marxism and psychoanalysis demonstrated to him that understanding consists in reducing one reality to another; "that the true reality is not the obvious reality." As Leach makes clear, these same assumptions underpin Levi-Strauss's claim that there are universal structures that apply to all societies, though they are frequently hidden. The job left for the structuralism is the refinement of his method with new and broader applications aimed at new ways of handling cultural data.

In part because Levi-Strauss writes with a style that relies heavily on nuance, and in part because structuralism operates at so many different levels, it is difficult to sift out a central theme. Leach tries to clear the jumble by interpreting structurally, step by step, the Ocdipus myth and examples of kinship terminology. But finally he confuses his own idea of what structuralism means with Levi-Strauss's and one is left anxious to dive back into The Raw and the Cooked.

Leach is best at pulling together the different kinds of criticism that have been directed at Levi-Strauss. He puts into perspective the often repeated attack on structuralism's shaky ethnographic evidence while at the same time outlining his own belief that Levi-Strauss may indeed have fudged in certain cases. But Leach's primary objection to structuralism is more profound. In Levi-Strauss's eagerness to find the universal determinants of human society Leach fears he has "over-looked the plain, matter-of-fact world we see all around us." The noble savage has become in Levi-Strauss's hands a "reduced model."

In a sense, Leach is correct. Levi-Strauss did not spend long years in field work and received most of his ethnographic information secondhand. He never lived in any one primitive society long enough to form intimate associations. But maybe this kind of distance is necessary to an examination that insists on finding unconscious structures. For the moment all we can say is that Levi-Strauss has made complexity revealing instead of confusing. Losing the "plain, matter-of-fact world" doesn't seem like too much to pay.

 

2. Delineate the role of Concept and Theory in sociological analysis.

ANSWER- Central to sociological analysis is ‘part to whole analysis’ and in this vein it would be helpful to place labeling theory in a larger contextual perspective. It is asserted that labeling theory cannot be fully appreciated apart from its connection to societal reaction theory and that it can be viewed as a subbranch of societal reaction theory, which includes micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis. Furthermore, the various levels of the perspective are intimately intertwined. Societal reaction theory can be viewed as comprising three streams of interrelated studies and theories: (1) microanalysis encompassing studies dealing with the traditional concerns of labeling theory, (2) mesoanalysis exemplified by studies dealing with larger focuses and structures such as agencies of social control, professions, social movements, etc., and (3) macroanalysis dealing with the interconnections of labeling processes to the larger social structure and social system, perhaps even extending to the world order and global processes related to patterns of social control.

 

Labeling theory would fall into a more narrow focus on the micro aspects of societal reaction theory such as consequences of labeling on the individual, their self-concept, identity, life chances, and subsequent deviant actions and entrenchment into deviant careers.

Tannenbaum (1938) was among the first to redefine the concept of deviant and redirect study to the effects of labeling and how it creates what Lemert (1967) calls ‘secondary’ deviance; deviance that is a product of the labeling process itself. Whereas positivists had focused their attention on the initial rule-breaking act or primary deviance. The labeling apparatus could be viewed as a system of amplification of deviance, which paralleled concerns of mainstream sociologists with the process of socialization, more aptly described as resocialization. Becker's (1963, 1964) focus was more on the creation and application of the rules by moral entrepreneurs and enforcers, the various contingencies involved in labeling, and the importance of social definitions. The labeling approach led to a reconceptualization of norms as ‘objectively determinable’ to ‘subjectively problematic’ (Rubington and Weinberg's, 1968). Becker (1963), in his study of marijuana use and Scheff (1966, 1984,1999) in his analysis of mental illness, both highlighted the importance of learning the deviant role, which further targeted the amplification process of elaborating and stabilizing deviance. Reflecting similar concerns, Goffman in Asylums (1961) elucidated the systematic efforts of institutions of social control to transform individuals' identities into deviant ones, in order to more effectively manage them in a bureaucratic system. This work addressed social control institutions and more encompassing institutions he described as ‘total’ institutions. His Stigma (1963) called attention to the central place of stigma and the critical role that social acceptance plays in the study of deviance, not only in the lives of deviants but in the underlying threat of embarrassment and loss of face that everyone faces at every moment in everyday interaction. All individuals share with deviants, though in a lesser degree, the experience of managing stigma. When social rejection becomes more extreme and spills over into other roles and situations, it reflects the terrain of deviance. Normals can usually shed the devaluation at the termination of the interaction sequence as it does not usually follow them into new situations as it may among deviants. Thus the ‘meaning’ as a deviant the person comes to have for others is constructed through social interaction by the treatment the individual receives, which is critical to creating deviants. The meaning is revealed in the process of social interaction where the individual is constructed out of the actions and reactions of others.

This tradition was often characteristic of subsequent research in criminology where a plethora of studies emerged with their focus on the consequences of formal systems of social control on recidivism. Here the findings show somewhat consistent effects of labeling and the formal processing of criminals on subsequent law-breaking behavior and reincarceration. Some studies, however, showed more inconsistent effects and suggested reformulation of the theory by specifying the conditions under which labeling is likely to be effective, in order to more adequately test labeling theory (Paternoster and Iovanni, 1989).

 

 

3. Examine the distinction between Marxian and Weberian ideologies.

ANSWER- Class is an important concept in sociology, and the views of Karl Marx and Max Weber in regard to the issue thus provide a source for endless debate. This essay will attempt to critically compare the views of Marx and Weber, by examining the main ideas of each theorist about the notion of class. Marx’s main argument is that class is determined by economic factors alone, whereas in contrast, Weber argues that social stratification cannot be defined solely in terms of class and the economic factors which affect class relationships. The two theories will then be compared so as to examine where the main differences between the two schools of thought lie.

Marx sees class as a social group whose members share the same relationships to the means of production (Haralambos, 1985; Giddens, 1971). He proposes that in all stratified societies there are two major social classes: the ruling class and the subject class, which are definable in terms of ownership and non-ownership of resources. The power of the ruling class is chiefly derived from the ownership and control of the forces of production, and this power leads the ruling class to exploit and subject class, which in turn creates a basic conflict of interest between the two groups (Haralambos, 1985: ). In modern capitalist society these two classes comprise the capitalists, who own the means of production, and wage labourers, who sell their labour to the capitalists in return for wages (Haralambos, 1985: ). According to both Swingewood (1984: ) and Giddens (1993: ), however, Marx acknowledges that class development produces a more complex structure of classes and class relations than this model would suggest, and that within each class there exists a number of groups or factions with different interests and values.

Marx argues that the ordering of classes and the nature of class conflict is historically variable, changing with the emergence of successive forms of society (Giddens, 1971: ). Marx sees the relationship between the two major classes as one of mutual dependence and conflict. Thus in capitalist society the bourgeoisie (the owning class) and the proletariat (the working class) are dependent upon each other, since wage labourers must sell their labour in order to survive, as they do not own or have control over the means of production, and therefore lack the means to produce goods independently, which subsequently makes them dependent on the capitalist class for their livelihoods (Haralambos, 1985: . At the same time, however, the capitalists are dependent on the working class for the provision of labour power, without which there would be no production. Yet according to Marx this mutual dependency is obviously not an equal relationship but rather a relationship between “exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed” (Haralambos, 1985

 

 

4. What is power? Discuss the instruments of power.

ANSWER-Power Inequality of resources leads to inequality of power. If there is no equality in the control of limited resources, the power in the relationship doesn’t exist.

Coser described two major traditions in the conceptualization of power. The first tradition explains power as the imposition of one’s will over another person or group. The second one focuses on the disposal of collectivities using power in order to use these things to attain their goals. The first one is similar to Max Weber’s approach towards power, and the second tradition is similar to Talcott Persons’s. Gerth and Mills opined that the power is just the probability for the obedience, one gets from other people. They explain the reasons may rest upon fear, loyalty, lack of energy to resist, circumstances at that time and the rational calculations of advantage.

Some scholars like Mills defined power as a ‘zero-sum’ concept. They consider power as a mutually exclusive manner, that means if one person wins, another person automatically loses. They opined that power can be possessed only by one person or a group. Some other Scholars like Talcott Parsons define power as a ‘non-zero-sum’ concept. In their view, both the parties share power and both will gain, like the share holders. In this view, power is defined in a mutually inclusive manner.

Sources of power :-

There are many sources for power. Several scholars have identified different sources of power based on their own perceptions. Based on the observations of notable scholars, the main sources are Resources and Property, Personality, Number of people, skills and knowledge, media, coercive force and organization.

Resources and Property :- Resources is considered as the most important attribute of power as most of the powerful persons has control over the limited resources. The possession of property allows people to acquire anything they want and thereby making others to submit to them.

Personality :- Personality means mind, morality, physique and competence one possesses. Personality has the ability to persuade and influence others.

Number of people :- Numbers of people is one of the important sources of power. The larger number can always wield power over the comparative small number of people, even if both the groups have almost same resources. This is clearly seen in the elections in the present society.

Skills and Knowledge :- Skills and abilities allow the people to provide services to those, who need it. It results in service providers having advantage and power over the people, who make use of their services. If they know how to use other forms of power, knowledge becomes power.

Media :- Everything written and shown in mass media has great impact on readers and viewers. Media has the ability to control information, so is the great source of power. As there is power, media can influence and manipulate people.

Coercive force :- Coercion force can be used by a person or a group to threaten others to make them act according to his/her desires. Coercive force can be of physical, mental or other form. People opt for submission to the coercive power possessor out of fear of punishment or fear of loss of their freedom or any other reason. The threats could be real or imaginary perception.

Organization :- The people or institutions, who are well organised have more power than those, who are unorganized. Generally, the organization has the ability to influence a much larger number of unorganized people to attain the their goals and objectives. It also can have the access to coercive power as in the case of state. However, the organization’s capacity depends on the quality and quantity of the resources it has.

 

 

 

5. What is entrepreneurship? Explain the perspective of Schumpeter on entrepreneurship.

ANSWER

to which corporations can control the pace and impact of their innovations on the economy.  The recent global financial crisis, which was a direct result of the misguided and mishandled financial innovations by the financial sector, provides convincing evidence against s-Entrepreneurship: The Early Schumpeter

In his early writings on entrepreneurship (1911), Schumpeter draws a sharp distinction between inventions and innovations.  Inventions are largely the results of a linear process of continuous, gradual, and predictable accumulation of scientific knowledge.  In contrast, innovations represent the sudden commercial applications of the existing scientific knowledge.  Thus, while inventions tend to grow at a slow and steady pace, their innovative adoptions are often sudden and disruptive events.  Indeed, most innovations are considered as the brainchildren of revolutionary entrepreneurs who periodically emerge to trigger massive discontinuities in the paths of economic development.  In addition, once an entrepreneur has shown the new and better way of doing things, the competitive free market forces will rapidly give rise to a new generation of imitators, resulting in the rapid spread of new ideas throughout the economy.  Thus, for the early Schumpeter, the free market system is as essential to economic progress as the periodic emergence of the entrepreneurial talent.

Entrepreneurship: The Later Schumpeter

In his later writings (1942), Schumpeter largely rejects his own earlier notion that a combination of competitive markets and random appearances of heroic entrepreneurial figures is essential to economic prosperity.  For him, modern industrial economies are largely characterized by noncompetitive markets, in which giant corporations exercise significant monopolistic power over their prices and outputs.  In addition, given their substantial financial resources, many corporations also enjoy considerable control over their paces of both invention and innovation activities through their large R&D expenditures.  At the same time, many large businesses offer significant financial support to top research institutions and universities, whose scientific achievements are often used to meet the commercial needs of their corporate sponsors.

Under these conditions, corporations handle all aspects of their businesses, from the development of new products to their financing, production, and marketing.  In other words, thanks to modern business, many traditional entrepreneurs have been replaced by corporate bureaucrats who routinely handle all business innovations.  Thus, rejecting his own earlier views, the later Schumpeter believes that the main source of business innovation is no longer the presence of exceptional individuals with bright new ideas, as was the case in the past, but increasingly the corporations themselves, which have both the resources and economic power to develop and market new products and processes.  If true, it follows that governments can, through their corporate grants and other business dealings, speed up the pace of creative innovations in their economies.

Entrepreneurship: After Schumpeter

The Schumpeterian pessimism regarding the gradual disappearance of the independent entrepreneurial spirit has itself proven somewhat misguided.  There is no question that many of the most important business innovations have come from highly concentrated industries, such as aviation, chemicals, electrical engineering, and machinery manufacturing.  However, it is also true that many technological advances of the recent decades, especially in the information technology sector, have been produced outside big corporations.  In many of these cases, the smaller creative firms and entrepreneurs have subsequently been absorbed into their giant competitors.  Thus, directly or indirectly, the entrepreneurial spirit seems to be much more durable than Schumpeter ever foresaw.  In addition, Schumpeter also seems to have greatly overestimated the extent uch a claim.

Conclusion

While there is wide agreement among economists regarding the role of entrepreneurship in fostering economic development, there is less agreement about the ways in which entrepreneurs emerge to exploit scientific advances to the benefits of society.  History shows that both individuals and organizations can play important complementary roles in the process.  At the same time, not unlike the cases of business ethics and business leadership, the jury is still out about the extent to which genuine entrepreneurship can be taught in the classroom.  After all, many recent entrepreneurial icons, such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, were all college dropouts.

 

Section-II

 6. What is modernity? Discuss Giddens’ concept of modernity.

ANSWER-Recent social changes have led to debates over the very nature of the contemporary social world. There is a debate between those who continue to see contemporary society as a modern world and those who argue that a substantial change has taken place in recent years and that we have moved into a new, postmodern world.

Most of the classical sociologists were engaged in an analysis and critique of modern society which is clear in the works of Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Simmel. As we move into the 21st century, it is obvious that today’s world is a very different place. The issue is whether the changes in the world are modest and continuous with those associated with modernity or are so dramatic and discontinuous that the contemporary world is better described by a new term, “postmodern.”

A host of social changes are fundamentally altering our world, and traditional “class politics” and faith in progress are being replaced by “identity politics” and “new” social movements such as feminism, gay liberation, ecologism, ethnic revivalism, “religious neo-fundamentalism”. These changes have brought with them a challenge to the “philosophical discourse of modernity”.

The conceptual framework of social science and the historical legacy of Enlightenment rationality have been challenged by new postmodern knowledge, of which contends that reason is a form of illegitimate power that marginalises and excludes cultural vocabularies that do not conform to its categories. As per Giddens in order to understand and conceptualise contemporary society, a new sociological theory capable of grasping its complexity is required.

He describes the modern world as a “juggernaut”. Modernity in the form of a juggernaut is extremely dynamic, it is a “runaway world” with great leaps in the pace, scope and profoundness of change over prior systems. Giddens defines modernity in terms of four basic institutions. The first is capitalism, characterised by commodity production, private ownership of capital, property less wage labour and a class system derived from these characteristics.

The second is industrialism, which involves the use of inanimate power sources and machinery to produce goods. Industrialism is not restricted to the workplace, and it affects an array of other settings, such as “transportation, communication and domestic life”. The third, is surveillance capacities which is defined as “the supervision of the activities of subject populations (mainly, but not exclusively) in the political sphere”. The fourth is military power, or the control of the means of violence, including the industrialisation of war.

It should be noted that at the macro level, Giddens focuses on the nation-state (rather than the more conventional sociological focus on society), which he sees as radically different from the type of community characteristic of pre-modern society.

 

7. What is citizenship? Discuss its various types.

ANSWER-

nment live in foreign countries. Since the state is organized and the government is established for the welfare of the citizen, it becomes essential that we should know the meaning of the term “citizen”. The term ‘citizen’ can be understood in a narrow or in a broad sense. In a narrow sense, it means the resident of a city or one who enjoys the privilege of living m a city. While in a broad sense citizen means a person who resides within the territorial limits of the state.

Speaking in terms of Political Science, citizen means a person who is the member of the state and who enjoys social and political rights. In our country an adult of twenty-one years of age enjoys, regardless of the distinction of caste, colour and creed, education, property and residence, etc.

As a matter of fact, the concept of citizenship goes back to the ancient city- states where the population was divided into two classes —the citizens and the slaves. The citizens enjoyed both civil and political rights. They directly or indirectly participate in all the functions of the civil and political life of the state.

Whereas the slaves enjoyed none of such rights and suffered from all kinds o political and economic disabilities. In this way in ancient Greece the term ‘citizen’ was used in its narrow sense. Only those who enjoyed the civil and political rights and who participated in the functions of the civil and political life of people were regarded as citizens.

Since every individual of the total population privileged to enjoy these rights, the number of the slaves was far in excess of citizens. The number of the citizens comprised 20,000 of the total population and the rest were regarded as slaves who did not enjoy any such rights.

Only the Patricians participated in the functions of the civil and political life of the state. The rest of the population was not privileged to enjoy any of such rights. Much similar process was adopted in the medieval age. But in modern times, the dawn of democracy has turned the tables in most of the states. In such states every adult enjoys the right to vote. This process is being adopted in India. Canada, Sri Lanka, Japan, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Lanka, Australia, United States of America, etc. Even in the communist countries almost all the adults are enjoying the right to vote.

The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., are some of the states where the policy of adult suffrage has been adopted. In Switzerland, women are not privileged to enjoy the right to vote. In Pakistan and in many backward Afro-Asian countries citizens are not privileged to enjoy a number of civil and political rights. It is hoped that in due course of time people will enjoy all the rights in these countries also. The U.N. is trying its best in this respect.

Definition of the citizen:

According to Aristotle, citizen is he “who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state”. Vattal has defined citizens as, “the members of a civil society bound to this society by certain duties, subject to its authority and equal participants in its advantages”. “Citizenship”, according to Laski, “is the contribution of one’s instructed judgment to the public good”.

On the basis of definitions given above, we arrive at the conclusion that in order to become a citizen one must have the following:

(1) The membership of the state.

(2) The Social and Political rights.

(3) Sentiment of devotion to the state.

Distinction between an alien and a citizen:

There is a marked distinction between an alien and a citizen. A citizen enjoys civil and political rights in his own country. Whereas an alien is not privileged to enjoy the political rights of the country but sometimes he is privileged to enjoy a few of the social rights. It depends entirely on the government of the country, in which he lives, to permit him to enjoy the social rights or not.

Aliens are of three types:

(1) Resident aliens;

(2) Temporary aliens;

(3) Ambassadors.

The people who have left their native land and have settled in the foreign countries are known as resident aliens. For example, a number of Indians have permanently settled in Sri Lanka, Burma, Canada, South Africa, Australia, U.S.A., England, etc.

They are no more the citizens of India. But it depends on the government of the respective states to grant these residents the citizenship of their country or not. Temporary aliens are those people who visit foreign countries in order to serve their purposes and when their purposes are served, they go back to their native land.

For example every year a number of students go to foreign countries in order to receive higher education. Traders visit foreign countries for the purpose of trade. When their purposes are served, they come back to their home.

Ambassadors are those aliens who settle in foreign countries as the representatives of their governments. For example, the representatives of foreign countries live in India and the representatives of Indian gover

 

8. Explain the roles and functions of civil society in a democracy.

ANSWER-In the democratization of Asian countries, notably South Korea, Indonesia, The Philippines and Thailand, the role of elites’ was pre-eminent, but would not have been achieved without the active participation of civil society organizations. They generated political pressure for reform, leading to the liberalizing of political systems and eventually bringing down dictatorial regimes. In Thailand, the economic success of the 1980s and early 1990s gave strength to the middle class and led to demands for more openness, political liberalization and democratization. Thailand had been known as a strong state. State institutions, especially the bureaucracy and the military, had played an eminent political role in slowing the development of societal organizations and interest groups. Nevertheless, because of rapid economic growth, the business sector, the urban middle class, and civil society organizations were strengthened. Several issue-oriented organizations including the Confederation for Democracy and environmental groups sprang up to stimulate democratic aspirations among the urban middle class and to fight for democratization. In addition, the semi-democratic government of Prime Minister Prem Tinasulanond (1980-1988) had facilitated the growth of political parties and helped legitimize participatory institutions. His rule accelerated the decline of the military’s political role. Although it made a comeback in 1991, the military had to withdraw from politics within a year because of fierce resistance by the urban middle class led by the Confederation of Democracy and other political groups.5 After 1992, the strength of civil society organizations continued to grow and is reflected in their success in campaigning for political reform in the late 1990s. The democratization that began in 1992 did not lead to a stable, incorruptible democratic government. Political parties remained weak and fragmented. Political corruption, including vote buying and other forms of electoral fraud was on the rise. Civil-society organizations responded by launching campaigns for further political reform and a new constitution. An organization called Pollwatch was set up in 1992 by then Prime Minister Anand Punyarachun to monitor elections. The Confederation for Democracy spearheaded the campaign and captured public support. The urban middle class had already been unhappy with the growing political corruption and government instability. Eventually, the new Constitution was promulgated in October 1997, marking a significant step toward political reform and democratization. In Indonesia, democratization was made possible through socio-economic changes that included the rise of the middle class and the expansion of civil society. Wider access to education was another impetus. These were the results of economic growth. As Donald Emmerson points out, economic growth in Indonesia during the Suharto era facilitated polycentrism in society, making political monopoly by those in power impossible.7 This polycentrism was characterized by the rise of civil society organizations, the growth of ethnic groups and public consciousness. Although economic growth under the Suharto’s New Order had helped legitimize his regime, especially during the 1980s, by the 1990s this economic success had exposed the expanding middle class to the foreign values such as democracy. The New Order was established to lend legitimacy to the military-dominated government in the name of political stability and economic development. But the expanding urban middle class and ethnic groups empowered by economic success were increasing critical of Suharto’s authoritarian government. Violent clashes with the government became increasingly common.8 On the eve of the 1997-98 economic crisis, Indonesian society had become more complex and the people’s changing attitudes were no longer consistent with the New Order.

9. Compare and contrast post-structuralism and post-modernism.

ANSWER-The Self in Relation to the World

The difference between postmodernism and poststructuralism can be seen in how the two schools of thought view the self in relation to the world. In postmodernism, the concept of self is abandoned. The individual becomes fragmented in a crowded, noisy world of endless data and competing ideas. The postmodern individual lets go of selfhood and engages in “play,” or the enjoyment of aesthetic experience itself to combat boredom. In poststructuralism, the critical self becomes more integrated with the world by accepting inherent contradictions in society -- that is, by resisting ideology and only one mode of identity. This poststructuralist self never escapes the structures of society but rather encompasses all possibilities in a new awareness of diversity and interconnectedness.

Major Characteristics of the Era

The Victorian era was characterized by change and upheaval. As manufacturing and industrialization skyrocketed, the chasm between the rich and the poor widened. Social turbulence was feverish, prompting writers and thinkers to speak out against the injustices in the world. As the economy abandoned agriculture for industry, rural farmers were forced to move to the city in search of factory work, straining the urban infrastructure. Charles Darwin publicized his theory of evolution, and many began to question the relevance of traditional institutions like organized religion. During this time, authors sought to capture the era's social turmoil through the development of new elements in their literature.

The Influence of Social Change

During the Victorian era, women began to fight for the changes they wanted to see in their lives. Many Victorian writers started to explore the philosophy of female empowerment and emancipation. Female writers like the Brontes and Mary Ann Evans (who wrote under the pseudonym George Eliot) worked to empower women in the realm of literature, gaining recognition and expressing a female consciousness.

Another element of Victorian literature, realism, was strongly inspired by the state of the era's society. Realism focused on the accurate portrayal of life's details. It emphasized the middle class and rejected the heroic in favor of the ordinary, focusing on common people and common situations. Dickens, for example, used realism in his works through his gritty portrayals of the pedestrian.

The Influence of Inner Turmoil

The upheavals in society spawned inner turmoil as well. In response, Victorian era critic John Ruskin developed the concept of pathetic fallacy, which asserts that characters view reality through the distorted lens of their passionate emotions. Thus the described reality conveys the narrator's interior state, which might be either negative or positive. An example lies in Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," in which cheerful scenery parallels the eponymous protagonist's sense of hope:

"The chamber looked such a bright little place to me as the sun shone in between the gay blue chintz window curtains, showing papered walls and a carpeted floor, so unlike the bare planks and stained plaster of Lowood. ... "

The Influence of Inner Change

The tumultuous times fostered individual growth and transformation, too, prompting individuals to alter their previously established expectations and understanding of life. Victorian authors bolstered the power of personal experience and emotion by altering the pre-existing concept of word-painting from a mere description of scenery to a dramatic narration of landscape.

Victorian word-painting dramatized the visual by incorporating thematic elements into the description. It provided a sense of progress from one scenic element to the next, thereby suggesting a metaphorical journey of self-discovery.

Racial Consciousness

The roots of the Harlem Renaissance began when the author and activist W.E.B Du Bois and activist Marcus Garvey both began a cultural movement that asked African Americans to embrace their culture and fight for equal rights. Although equal rights movements had occurred in the past, Du Bois and Garvey emphasized African Americans themselves organizing and had a clear focus on embracing African American culture. Both Du Bois and Garvey believed that art and culture was a key aspect of bringing about equality. The idea of the "New Negro," popularized by the writer and philosopher Alain Locke, emphasized the need for a black cultural identity in which black Americans expressed art in all genres that spoke to their history and culture.

The "Divided Self"

Many works of art--from literature to music--featured the element of the "divided self," a term derived from W.E.B. Du Bois' seminal work of philosophy and personal reflection, "The Soul of Black Folks." The concept of divided self speaks to the psychological position of individuals considered "the other" by society--they see themselves not only through their own perspective, but also through the eyes of the society that sees them as lesser or "other." This split creates a divided sense of self. Poets such as Langston Hughes and Claude McKay expressed this concept, while the novel "The Invisible Man" most famously spoke to this divided sense of black identity.

 

10. Discuss the elements of caste in gender stratification.

 ANSWER-Stratification has always existed in our society but earlier the economic and caste barrier were considered as major reasons, but later on, female sociologists tactfully showed how gender equally plays an important role in stratifying our society. The females were abused and were underclass level stratification but afterwards, it occupied a different category.

Stratification occurred in different ways like a widow remarriage was not something to even think about. Sati practise was also common i.e. the women were obliged to end their lives after husband death. The decision making freedom was not amounting for women of the society. Joan Acker was the one sociologist who criticized the gender role in stratification.

There was an argument between feminist that whether a female position should be recognized by her husband occupation and authority or her position. In today’s time, a female position is studied as a separate category. The stratification between the genders can be seen in different ways. For example, it is a traditional thinking that mechanical branch is suitable for boys only, thus the number of girls in this branch is much lesser than other engineering branches. Likewise in many companies, there is a difference in payment of men and women being placed at the same level. There is one more example where the number of female employees at a company is lesser than men.

Although this system is studied in a detailed way and nowadays women empowerment process is happening at a large scale. The companies mostly IT companies are employing women more and they have made many policies regarding the betterment of women in society. For example, Accenture company has made a rule that a minimum of 1/3 of the total employees should be females.

There are three categories of occupational segregation among women

Women who work outside their houses like adopting a full-fledged career in any career. For example, a woman working in some multi-national company comes under this category.

Some of the percentages of women does not go outside their homes, they work from home and earn from part-time jobs. For example, women opening beauty parlours in their homes or women taking up the weaving work at their homes earn from part-time jobs only.

And a major proportion is the housewife and they depend on their respective partners for financial support. For example, a homemaker does not earn anything but the workday and night without a holiday depending on her spouse for money matters.

Women have different priorities regarding occupation and lifestyle. These set a difference in the status bar of married couples in which either only one person earn or both of them earn. This difference sets the status bar of education and lifestyle of their offspring’s too.

Another sociologist Karl Marx researched the impact of women in any society. He stated that a society which cannot provide respect and opportunities to a woman will not develop as a society.

 

MSO 001 Sociological Theories and Concepts Solved Assignment 2021-22

All MSO 001 Sociological Theories and Concepts Solved Assignment 2021-22 available here , students can get all their assignments in free of cost. It helps students to get more marks.

Answer any five questions selecting at least two from each of the sections.

Your answers should be in about 500 words each.

Section-I

 1. Discuss the contribution of Levi-Strauss and Edmund Leach to the understanding of social structure.

ANSWER - IN THE LAST year or so Levi-Strauss has become a kind of cult. For Americans his structural anthropology is new, brilliant, maybe even a way out of the jumble of inexplicable data collected over the years by social science. But a more important part of his appeal is his brashness. Levi-Strauss is a theorist attempting to discover in the materials of culture the universal structures of the human mind. His objectives are just that large, and one senses he may be already part of the way there.

But for traditional anthropologists Levi-Strauss is a problem. He doesn't observe their rules-rather than empirical investigations and an emphasis on the behavioral act, LeviStrauss has evolved a formula for cultural analysis that centers on linguistic structures. He goes beyond the observable, and no longer takes as given symbolic meanings, communication and the structure of understanding.

Most Anglo-American criticisms of structural anthropology attack the nature of its evidence. Levi-Strauss's most energetic critic, David Maybury-Lewis, points to inconsistencies, even manipulations of traditional ethnographic data to fit the structural schema. But Levi-Strauss would argue the definitions of social fact must be reevaluated. The functionalist anthropologist's notion that social fact is simply observable social action is too narrow. Structural anthropology expands the definition by trying to observe societies at both their conscious and unconscious levels.

But regardless of the debate over evidence, it must be recognized that Levi-Strauss has made a major, perhaps pivotal, contribution to the way we perceive the world. The implications of structuralism outside anthropology are only beginning to be explored. What is needed most right now is not more obscure criticism of obscure ethnographic details, but a clearer understanding of what Levi-Strauss is trying to say.

Edmund Leach's Claude Levi-Strauss has been published this year in the Modern Masters series that includes works on Wittgenstein, Marcuse, Guevara, Chomsky, Joyce and others. Concerned primarily with bringing together some of the major themes in contemporary thought, the series (edited by Frank kermonde) has been written by scholars for the general reader.

Leach has been a critic of structural anthropology for nearly twenty years and under Levi-Strauss's influence developed his own theories of structural analysis. His book is concise and summarizes when possible, but it is not a popularization-he remains honest to the complexities of Levi-Strauss. Blending the old and new anthropology in his approach to structuralism, Leach presents Levi-Strauss as a uniquely important if not over-zealous, thinker.

STRUCTURALISM is best introduced by examining the social theories outside anthropology that shaped Levi-Strauss's early development. Both Marxism and psychoanalysis demonstrated to him that understanding consists in reducing one reality to another; "that the true reality is not the obvious reality." As Leach makes clear, these same assumptions underpin Levi-Strauss's claim that there are universal structures that apply to all societies, though they are frequently hidden. The job left for the structuralism is the refinement of his method with new and broader applications aimed at new ways of handling cultural data.

In part because Levi-Strauss writes with a style that relies heavily on nuance, and in part because structuralism operates at so many different levels, it is difficult to sift out a central theme. Leach tries to clear the jumble by interpreting structurally, step by step, the Ocdipus myth and examples of kinship terminology. But finally he confuses his own idea of what structuralism means with Levi-Strauss's and one is left anxious to dive back into The Raw and the Cooked.

Leach is best at pulling together the different kinds of criticism that have been directed at Levi-Strauss. He puts into perspective the often repeated attack on structuralism's shaky ethnographic evidence while at the same time outlining his own belief that Levi-Strauss may indeed have fudged in certain cases. But Leach's primary objection to structuralism is more profound. In Levi-Strauss's eagerness to find the universal determinants of human society Leach fears he has "over-looked the plain, matter-of-fact world we see all around us." The noble savage has become in Levi-Strauss's hands a "reduced model."

In a sense, Leach is correct. Levi-Strauss did not spend long years in field work and received most of his ethnographic information secondhand. He never lived in any one primitive society long enough to form intimate associations. But maybe this kind of distance is necessary to an examination that insists on finding unconscious structures. For the moment all we can say is that Levi-Strauss has made complexity revealing instead of confusing. Losing the "plain, matter-of-fact world" doesn't seem like too much to pay.

 

2. Delineate the role of Concept and Theory in sociological analysis.

ANSWER- Central to sociological analysis is ‘part to whole analysis’ and in this vein it would be helpful to place labeling theory in a larger contextual perspective. It is asserted that labeling theory cannot be fully appreciated apart from its connection to societal reaction theory and that it can be viewed as a subbranch of societal reaction theory, which includes micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis. Furthermore, the various levels of the perspective are intimately intertwined. Societal reaction theory can be viewed as comprising three streams of interrelated studies and theories: (1) microanalysis encompassing studies dealing with the traditional concerns of labeling theory, (2) mesoanalysis exemplified by studies dealing with larger focuses and structures such as agencies of social control, professions, social movements, etc., and (3) macroanalysis dealing with the interconnections of labeling processes to the larger social structure and social system, perhaps even extending to the world order and global processes related to patterns of social control.

 

Labeling theory would fall into a more narrow focus on the micro aspects of societal reaction theory such as consequences of labeling on the individual, their self-concept, identity, life chances, and subsequent deviant actions and entrenchment into deviant careers.

Tannenbaum (1938) was among the first to redefine the concept of deviant and redirect study to the effects of labeling and how it creates what Lemert (1967) calls ‘secondary’ deviance; deviance that is a product of the labeling process itself. Whereas positivists had focused their attention on the initial rule-breaking act or primary deviance. The labeling apparatus could be viewed as a system of amplification of deviance, which paralleled concerns of mainstream sociologists with the process of socialization, more aptly described as resocialization. Becker's (1963, 1964) focus was more on the creation and application of the rules by moral entrepreneurs and enforcers, the various contingencies involved in labeling, and the importance of social definitions. The labeling approach led to a reconceptualization of norms as ‘objectively determinable’ to ‘subjectively problematic’ (Rubington and Weinberg's, 1968). Becker (1963), in his study of marijuana use and Scheff (1966, 1984,1999) in his analysis of mental illness, both highlighted the importance of learning the deviant role, which further targeted the amplification process of elaborating and stabilizing deviance. Reflecting similar concerns, Goffman in Asylums (1961) elucidated the systematic efforts of institutions of social control to transform individuals' identities into deviant ones, in order to more effectively manage them in a bureaucratic system. This work addressed social control institutions and more encompassing institutions he described as ‘total’ institutions. His Stigma (1963) called attention to the central place of stigma and the critical role that social acceptance plays in the study of deviance, not only in the lives of deviants but in the underlying threat of embarrassment and loss of face that everyone faces at every moment in everyday interaction. All individuals share with deviants, though in a lesser degree, the experience of managing stigma. When social rejection becomes more extreme and spills over into other roles and situations, it reflects the terrain of deviance. Normals can usually shed the devaluation at the termination of the interaction sequence as it does not usually follow them into new situations as it may among deviants. Thus the ‘meaning’ as a deviant the person comes to have for others is constructed through social interaction by the treatment the individual receives, which is critical to creating deviants. The meaning is revealed in the process of social interaction where the individual is constructed out of the actions and reactions of others.

This tradition was often characteristic of subsequent research in criminology where a plethora of studies emerged with their focus on the consequences of formal systems of social control on recidivism. Here the findings show somewhat consistent effects of labeling and the formal processing of criminals on subsequent law-breaking behavior and reincarceration. Some studies, however, showed more inconsistent effects and suggested reformulation of the theory by specifying the conditions under which labeling is likely to be effective, in order to more adequately test labeling theory (Paternoster and Iovanni, 1989).

 

 

3. Examine the distinction between Marxian and Weberian ideologies.

ANSWER- Class is an important concept in sociology, and the views of Karl Marx and Max Weber in regard to the issue thus provide a source for endless debate. This essay will attempt to critically compare the views of Marx and Weber, by examining the main ideas of each theorist about the notion of class. Marx’s main argument is that class is determined by economic factors alone, whereas in contrast, Weber argues that social stratification cannot be defined solely in terms of class and the economic factors which affect class relationships. The two theories will then be compared so as to examine where the main differences between the two schools of thought lie.

Marx sees class as a social group whose members share the same relationships to the means of production (Haralambos, 1985; Giddens, 1971). He proposes that in all stratified societies there are two major social classes: the ruling class and the subject class, which are definable in terms of ownership and non-ownership of resources. The power of the ruling class is chiefly derived from the ownership and control of the forces of production, and this power leads the ruling class to exploit and subject class, which in turn creates a basic conflict of interest between the two groups (Haralambos, 1985: ). In modern capitalist society these two classes comprise the capitalists, who own the means of production, and wage labourers, who sell their labour to the capitalists in return for wages (Haralambos, 1985: ). According to both Swingewood (1984: ) and Giddens (1993: ), however, Marx acknowledges that class development produces a more complex structure of classes and class relations than this model would suggest, and that within each class there exists a number of groups or factions with different interests and values.

Marx argues that the ordering of classes and the nature of class conflict is historically variable, changing with the emergence of successive forms of society (Giddens, 1971: ). Marx sees the relationship between the two major classes as one of mutual dependence and conflict. Thus in capitalist society the bourgeoisie (the owning class) and the proletariat (the working class) are dependent upon each other, since wage labourers must sell their labour in order to survive, as they do not own or have control over the means of production, and therefore lack the means to produce goods independently, which subsequently makes them dependent on the capitalist class for their livelihoods (Haralambos, 1985: . At the same time, however, the capitalists are dependent on the working class for the provision of labour power, without which there would be no production. Yet according to Marx this mutual dependency is obviously not an equal relationship but rather a relationship between “exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed” (Haralambos, 1985

 

 

4. What is power? Discuss the instruments of power.

ANSWER-Power Inequality of resources leads to inequality of power. If there is no equality in the control of limited resources, the power in the relationship doesn’t exist.

Coser described two major traditions in the conceptualization of power. The first tradition explains power as the imposition of one’s will over another person or group. The second one focuses on the disposal of collectivities using power in order to use these things to attain their goals. The first one is similar to Max Weber’s approach towards power, and the second tradition is similar to Talcott Persons’s. Gerth and Mills opined that the power is just the probability for the obedience, one gets from other people. They explain the reasons may rest upon fear, loyalty, lack of energy to resist, circumstances at that time and the rational calculations of advantage.

Some scholars like Mills defined power as a ‘zero-sum’ concept. They consider power as a mutually exclusive manner, that means if one person wins, another person automatically loses. They opined that power can be possessed only by one person or a group. Some other Scholars like Talcott Parsons define power as a ‘non-zero-sum’ concept. In their view, both the parties share power and both will gain, like the share holders. In this view, power is defined in a mutually inclusive manner.

Sources of power :-

There are many sources for power. Several scholars have identified different sources of power based on their own perceptions. Based on the observations of notable scholars, the main sources are Resources and Property, Personality, Number of people, skills and knowledge, media, coercive force and organization.

Resources and Property :- Resources is considered as the most important attribute of power as most of the powerful persons has control over the limited resources. The possession of property allows people to acquire anything they want and thereby making others to submit to them.

Personality :- Personality means mind, morality, physique and competence one possesses. Personality has the ability to persuade and influence others.

Number of people :- Numbers of people is one of the important sources of power. The larger number can always wield power over the comparative small number of people, even if both the groups have almost same resources. This is clearly seen in the elections in the present society.

Skills and Knowledge :- Skills and abilities allow the people to provide services to those, who need it. It results in service providers having advantage and power over the people, who make use of their services. If they know how to use other forms of power, knowledge becomes power.

Media :- Everything written and shown in mass media has great impact on readers and viewers. Media has the ability to control information, so is the great source of power. As there is power, media can influence and manipulate people.

Coercive force :- Coercion force can be used by a person or a group to threaten others to make them act according to his/her desires. Coercive force can be of physical, mental or other form. People opt for submission to the coercive power possessor out of fear of punishment or fear of loss of their freedom or any other reason. The threats could be real or imaginary perception.

Organization :- The people or institutions, who are well organised have more power than those, who are unorganized. Generally, the organization has the ability to influence a much larger number of unorganized people to attain the their goals and objectives. It also can have the access to coercive power as in the case of state. However, the organization’s capacity depends on the quality and quantity of the resources it has.

 

 

 

5. What is entrepreneurship? Explain the perspective of Schumpeter on entrepreneurship.

ANSWER

to which corporations can control the pace and impact of their innovations on the economy.  The recent global financial crisis, which was a direct result of the misguided and mishandled financial innovations by the financial sector, provides convincing evidence against s-Entrepreneurship: The Early Schumpeter

In his early writings on entrepreneurship (1911), Schumpeter draws a sharp distinction between inventions and innovations.  Inventions are largely the results of a linear process of continuous, gradual, and predictable accumulation of scientific knowledge.  In contrast, innovations represent the sudden commercial applications of the existing scientific knowledge.  Thus, while inventions tend to grow at a slow and steady pace, their innovative adoptions are often sudden and disruptive events.  Indeed, most innovations are considered as the brainchildren of revolutionary entrepreneurs who periodically emerge to trigger massive discontinuities in the paths of economic development.  In addition, once an entrepreneur has shown the new and better way of doing things, the competitive free market forces will rapidly give rise to a new generation of imitators, resulting in the rapid spread of new ideas throughout the economy.  Thus, for the early Schumpeter, the free market system is as essential to economic progress as the periodic emergence of the entrepreneurial talent.

Entrepreneurship: The Later Schumpeter

In his later writings (1942), Schumpeter largely rejects his own earlier notion that a combination of competitive markets and random appearances of heroic entrepreneurial figures is essential to economic prosperity.  For him, modern industrial economies are largely characterized by noncompetitive markets, in which giant corporations exercise significant monopolistic power over their prices and outputs.  In addition, given their substantial financial resources, many corporations also enjoy considerable control over their paces of both invention and innovation activities through their large R&D expenditures.  At the same time, many large businesses offer significant financial support to top research institutions and universities, whose scientific achievements are often used to meet the commercial needs of their corporate sponsors.

Under these conditions, corporations handle all aspects of their businesses, from the development of new products to their financing, production, and marketing.  In other words, thanks to modern business, many traditional entrepreneurs have been replaced by corporate bureaucrats who routinely handle all business innovations.  Thus, rejecting his own earlier views, the later Schumpeter believes that the main source of business innovation is no longer the presence of exceptional individuals with bright new ideas, as was the case in the past, but increasingly the corporations themselves, which have both the resources and economic power to develop and market new products and processes.  If true, it follows that governments can, through their corporate grants and other business dealings, speed up the pace of creative innovations in their economies.

Entrepreneurship: After Schumpeter

The Schumpeterian pessimism regarding the gradual disappearance of the independent entrepreneurial spirit has itself proven somewhat misguided.  There is no question that many of the most important business innovations have come from highly concentrated industries, such as aviation, chemicals, electrical engineering, and machinery manufacturing.  However, it is also true that many technological advances of the recent decades, especially in the information technology sector, have been produced outside big corporations.  In many of these cases, the smaller creative firms and entrepreneurs have subsequently been absorbed into their giant competitors.  Thus, directly or indirectly, the entrepreneurial spirit seems to be much more durable than Schumpeter ever foresaw.  In addition, Schumpeter also seems to have greatly overestimated the extent uch a claim.

Conclusion

While there is wide agreement among economists regarding the role of entrepreneurship in fostering economic development, there is less agreement about the ways in which entrepreneurs emerge to exploit scientific advances to the benefits of society.  History shows that both individuals and organizations can play important complementary roles in the process.  At the same time, not unlike the cases of business ethics and business leadership, the jury is still out about the extent to which genuine entrepreneurship can be taught in the classroom.  After all, many recent entrepreneurial icons, such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, were all college dropouts.

 

Section-II

 6. What is modernity? Discuss Giddens’ concept of modernity.

ANSWER-Recent social changes have led to debates over the very nature of the contemporary social world. There is a debate between those who continue to see contemporary society as a modern world and those who argue that a substantial change has taken place in recent years and that we have moved into a new, postmodern world.

Most of the classical sociologists were engaged in an analysis and critique of modern society which is clear in the works of Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Simmel. As we move into the 21st century, it is obvious that today’s world is a very different place. The issue is whether the changes in the world are modest and continuous with those associated with modernity or are so dramatic and discontinuous that the contemporary world is better described by a new term, “postmodern.”

A host of social changes are fundamentally altering our world, and traditional “class politics” and faith in progress are being replaced by “identity politics” and “new” social movements such as feminism, gay liberation, ecologism, ethnic revivalism, “religious neo-fundamentalism”. These changes have brought with them a challenge to the “philosophical discourse of modernity”.

The conceptual framework of social science and the historical legacy of Enlightenment rationality have been challenged by new postmodern knowledge, of which contends that reason is a form of illegitimate power that marginalises and excludes cultural vocabularies that do not conform to its categories. As per Giddens in order to understand and conceptualise contemporary society, a new sociological theory capable of grasping its complexity is required.

He describes the modern world as a “juggernaut”. Modernity in the form of a juggernaut is extremely dynamic, it is a “runaway world” with great leaps in the pace, scope and profoundness of change over prior systems. Giddens defines modernity in terms of four basic institutions. The first is capitalism, characterised by commodity production, private ownership of capital, property less wage labour and a class system derived from these characteristics.

The second is industrialism, which involves the use of inanimate power sources and machinery to produce goods. Industrialism is not restricted to the workplace, and it affects an array of other settings, such as “transportation, communication and domestic life”. The third, is surveillance capacities which is defined as “the supervision of the activities of subject populations (mainly, but not exclusively) in the political sphere”. The fourth is military power, or the control of the means of violence, including the industrialisation of war.

It should be noted that at the macro level, Giddens focuses on the nation-state (rather than the more conventional sociological focus on society), which he sees as radically different from the type of community characteristic of pre-modern society.

 

7. What is citizenship? Discuss its various types.

ANSWER-

nment live in foreign countries. Since the state is organized and the government is established for the welfare of the citizen, it becomes essential that we should know the meaning of the term “citizen”. The term ‘citizen’ can be understood in a narrow or in a broad sense. In a narrow sense, it means the resident of a city or one who enjoys the privilege of living m a city. While in a broad sense citizen means a person who resides within the territorial limits of the state.

Speaking in terms of Political Science, citizen means a person who is the member of the state and who enjoys social and political rights. In our country an adult of twenty-one years of age enjoys, regardless of the distinction of caste, colour and creed, education, property and residence, etc.

As a matter of fact, the concept of citizenship goes back to the ancient city- states where the population was divided into two classes —the citizens and the slaves. The citizens enjoyed both civil and political rights. They directly or indirectly participate in all the functions of the civil and political life of the state.

Whereas the slaves enjoyed none of such rights and suffered from all kinds o political and economic disabilities. In this way in ancient Greece the term ‘citizen’ was used in its narrow sense. Only those who enjoyed the civil and political rights and who participated in the functions of the civil and political life of people were regarded as citizens.

Since every individual of the total population privileged to enjoy these rights, the number of the slaves was far in excess of citizens. The number of the citizens comprised 20,000 of the total population and the rest were regarded as slaves who did not enjoy any such rights.

Only the Patricians participated in the functions of the civil and political life of the state. The rest of the population was not privileged to enjoy any of such rights. Much similar process was adopted in the medieval age. But in modern times, the dawn of democracy has turned the tables in most of the states. In such states every adult enjoys the right to vote. This process is being adopted in India. Canada, Sri Lanka, Japan, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Lanka, Australia, United States of America, etc. Even in the communist countries almost all the adults are enjoying the right to vote.

The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., are some of the states where the policy of adult suffrage has been adopted. In Switzerland, women are not privileged to enjoy the right to vote. In Pakistan and in many backward Afro-Asian countries citizens are not privileged to enjoy a number of civil and political rights. It is hoped that in due course of time people will enjoy all the rights in these countries also. The U.N. is trying its best in this respect.

Definition of the citizen:

According to Aristotle, citizen is he “who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state”. Vattal has defined citizens as, “the members of a civil society bound to this society by certain duties, subject to its authority and equal participants in its advantages”. “Citizenship”, according to Laski, “is the contribution of one’s instructed judgment to the public good”.

On the basis of definitions given above, we arrive at the conclusion that in order to become a citizen one must have the following:

(1) The membership of the state.

(2) The Social and Political rights.

(3) Sentiment of devotion to the state.

Distinction between an alien and a citizen:

There is a marked distinction between an alien and a citizen. A citizen enjoys civil and political rights in his own country. Whereas an alien is not privileged to enjoy the political rights of the country but sometimes he is privileged to enjoy a few of the social rights. It depends entirely on the government of the country, in which he lives, to permit him to enjoy the social rights or not.

Aliens are of three types:

(1) Resident aliens;

(2) Temporary aliens;

(3) Ambassadors.

The people who have left their native land and have settled in the foreign countries are known as resident aliens. For example, a number of Indians have permanently settled in Sri Lanka, Burma, Canada, South Africa, Australia, U.S.A., England, etc.

They are no more the citizens of India. But it depends on the government of the respective states to grant these residents the citizenship of their country or not. Temporary aliens are those people who visit foreign countries in order to serve their purposes and when their purposes are served, they go back to their native land.

For example every year a number of students go to foreign countries in order to receive higher education. Traders visit foreign countries for the purpose of trade. When their purposes are served, they come back to their home.

Ambassadors are those aliens who settle in foreign countries as the representatives of their governments. For example, the representatives of foreign countries live in India and the representatives of Indian gover

 

8. Explain the roles and functions of civil society in a democracy.

ANSWER-In the democratization of Asian countries, notably South Korea, Indonesia, The Philippines and Thailand, the role of elites’ was pre-eminent, but would not have been achieved without the active participation of civil society organizations. They generated political pressure for reform, leading to the liberalizing of political systems and eventually bringing down dictatorial regimes. In Thailand, the economic success of the 1980s and early 1990s gave strength to the middle class and led to demands for more openness, political liberalization and democratization. Thailand had been known as a strong state. State institutions, especially the bureaucracy and the military, had played an eminent political role in slowing the development of societal organizations and interest groups. Nevertheless, because of rapid economic growth, the business sector, the urban middle class, and civil society organizations were strengthened. Several issue-oriented organizations including the Confederation for Democracy and environmental groups sprang up to stimulate democratic aspirations among the urban middle class and to fight for democratization. In addition, the semi-democratic government of Prime Minister Prem Tinasulanond (1980-1988) had facilitated the growth of political parties and helped legitimize participatory institutions. His rule accelerated the decline of the military’s political role. Although it made a comeback in 1991, the military had to withdraw from politics within a year because of fierce resistance by the urban middle class led by the Confederation of Democracy and other political groups.5 After 1992, the strength of civil society organizations continued to grow and is reflected in their success in campaigning for political reform in the late 1990s. The democratization that began in 1992 did not lead to a stable, incorruptible democratic government. Political parties remained weak and fragmented. Political corruption, including vote buying and other forms of electoral fraud was on the rise. Civil-society organizations responded by launching campaigns for further political reform and a new constitution. An organization called Pollwatch was set up in 1992 by then Prime Minister Anand Punyarachun to monitor elections. The Confederation for Democracy spearheaded the campaign and captured public support. The urban middle class had already been unhappy with the growing political corruption and government instability. Eventually, the new Constitution was promulgated in October 1997, marking a significant step toward political reform and democratization. In Indonesia, democratization was made possible through socio-economic changes that included the rise of the middle class and the expansion of civil society. Wider access to education was another impetus. These were the results of economic growth. As Donald Emmerson points out, economic growth in Indonesia during the Suharto era facilitated polycentrism in society, making political monopoly by those in power impossible.7 This polycentrism was characterized by the rise of civil society organizations, the growth of ethnic groups and public consciousness. Although economic growth under the Suharto’s New Order had helped legitimize his regime, especially during the 1980s, by the 1990s this economic success had exposed the expanding middle class to the foreign values such as democracy. The New Order was established to lend legitimacy to the military-dominated government in the name of political stability and economic development. But the expanding urban middle class and ethnic groups empowered by economic success were increasing critical of Suharto’s authoritarian government. Violent clashes with the government became increasingly common.8 On the eve of the 1997-98 economic crisis, Indonesian society had become more complex and the people’s changing attitudes were no longer consistent with the New Order.

9. Compare and contrast post-structuralism and post-modernism.

ANSWER-The Self in Relation to the World

The difference between postmodernism and poststructuralism can be seen in how the two schools of thought view the self in relation to the world. In postmodernism, the concept of self is abandoned. The individual becomes fragmented in a crowded, noisy world of endless data and competing ideas. The postmodern individual lets go of selfhood and engages in “play,” or the enjoyment of aesthetic experience itself to combat boredom. In poststructuralism, the critical self becomes more integrated with the world by accepting inherent contradictions in society -- that is, by resisting ideology and only one mode of identity. This poststructuralist self never escapes the structures of society but rather encompasses all possibilities in a new awareness of diversity and interconnectedness.

Major Characteristics of the Era

The Victorian era was characterized by change and upheaval. As manufacturing and industrialization skyrocketed, the chasm between the rich and the poor widened. Social turbulence was feverish, prompting writers and thinkers to speak out against the injustices in the world. As the economy abandoned agriculture for industry, rural farmers were forced to move to the city in search of factory work, straining the urban infrastructure. Charles Darwin publicized his theory of evolution, and many began to question the relevance of traditional institutions like organized religion. During this time, authors sought to capture the era's social turmoil through the development of new elements in their literature.

The Influence of Social Change

During the Victorian era, women began to fight for the changes they wanted to see in their lives. Many Victorian writers started to explore the philosophy of female empowerment and emancipation. Female writers like the Brontes and Mary Ann Evans (who wrote under the pseudonym George Eliot) worked to empower women in the realm of literature, gaining recognition and expressing a female consciousness.

Another element of Victorian literature, realism, was strongly inspired by the state of the era's society. Realism focused on the accurate portrayal of life's details. It emphasized the middle class and rejected the heroic in favor of the ordinary, focusing on common people and common situations. Dickens, for example, used realism in his works through his gritty portrayals of the pedestrian.

The Influence of Inner Turmoil

The upheavals in society spawned inner turmoil as well. In response, Victorian era critic John Ruskin developed the concept of pathetic fallacy, which asserts that characters view reality through the distorted lens of their passionate emotions. Thus the described reality conveys the narrator's interior state, which might be either negative or positive. An example lies in Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," in which cheerful scenery parallels the eponymous protagonist's sense of hope:

"The chamber looked such a bright little place to me as the sun shone in between the gay blue chintz window curtains, showing papered walls and a carpeted floor, so unlike the bare planks and stained plaster of Lowood. ... "

The Influence of Inner Change

The tumultuous times fostered individual growth and transformation, too, prompting individuals to alter their previously established expectations and understanding of life. Victorian authors bolstered the power of personal experience and emotion by altering the pre-existing concept of word-painting from a mere description of scenery to a dramatic narration of landscape.

Victorian word-painting dramatized the visual by incorporating thematic elements into the description. It provided a sense of progress from one scenic element to the next, thereby suggesting a metaphorical journey of self-discovery.

Racial Consciousness

The roots of the Harlem Renaissance began when the author and activist W.E.B Du Bois and activist Marcus Garvey both began a cultural movement that asked African Americans to embrace their culture and fight for equal rights. Although equal rights movements had occurred in the past, Du Bois and Garvey emphasized African Americans themselves organizing and had a clear focus on embracing African American culture. Both Du Bois and Garvey believed that art and culture was a key aspect of bringing about equality. The idea of the "New Negro," popularized by the writer and philosopher Alain Locke, emphasized the need for a black cultural identity in which black Americans expressed art in all genres that spoke to their history and culture.

The "Divided Self"

Many works of art--from literature to music--featured the element of the "divided self," a term derived from W.E.B. Du Bois' seminal work of philosophy and personal reflection, "The Soul of Black Folks." The concept of divided self speaks to the psychological position of individuals considered "the other" by society--they see themselves not only through their own perspective, but also through the eyes of the society that sees them as lesser or "other." This split creates a divided sense of self. Poets such as Langston Hughes and Claude McKay expressed this concept, while the novel "The Invisible Man" most famously spoke to this divided sense of black identity.

 

10. Discuss the elements of caste in gender stratification.

 ANSWER-Stratification has always existed in our society but earlier the economic and caste barrier were considered as major reasons, but later on, female sociologists tactfully showed how gender equally plays an important role in stratifying our society. The females were abused and were underclass level stratification but afterwards, it occupied a different category.

Stratification occurred in different ways like a widow remarriage was not something to even think about. Sati practise was also common i.e. the women were obliged to end their lives after husband death. The decision making freedom was not amounting for women of the society. Joan Acker was the one sociologist who criticized the gender role in stratification.

There was an argument between feminist that whether a female position should be recognized by her husband occupation and authority or her position. In today’s time, a female position is studied as a separate category. The stratification between the genders can be seen in different ways. For example, it is a traditional thinking that mechanical branch is suitable for boys only, thus the number of girls in this branch is much lesser than other engineering branches. Likewise in many companies, there is a difference in payment of men and women being placed at the same level. There is one more example where the number of female employees at a company is lesser than men.

Although this system is studied in a detailed way and nowadays women empowerment process is happening at a large scale. The companies mostly IT companies are employing women more and they have made many policies regarding the betterment of women in society. For example, Accenture company has made a rule that a minimum of 1/3 of the total employees should be females.

There are three categories of occupational segregation among women

Women who work outside their houses like adopting a full-fledged career in any career. For example, a woman working in some multi-national company comes under this category.

Some of the percentages of women does not go outside their homes, they work from home and earn from part-time jobs. For example, women opening beauty parlours in their homes or women taking up the weaving work at their homes earn from part-time jobs only.

And a major proportion is the housewife and they depend on their respective partners for financial support. For example, a homemaker does not earn anything but the workday and night without a holiday depending on her spouse for money matters.

Women have different priorities regarding occupation and lifestyle. These set a difference in the status bar of married couples in which either only one person earn or both of them earn. This difference sets the status bar of education and lifestyle of their offspring’s too.

Another sociologist Karl Marx researched the impact of women in any society. He stated that a society which cannot provide respect and opportunities to a woman will not develop as a society.

                            FOR PDF AND HANDWRITTEN

WHATSAPP 8130208920