Mode of Production

Significance of concept

According to Marx, the combination of forces and relations of production means that the way people relate to the physical world and the way people relate to each other socially are bound up together in specific and necessary ways. People must consume to survive, but to consume they must produce, and in producing they necessarily enter into relations which exist independently of their will.

For Marx, the whole 'secret' of why/how a social order exists and the causes of social change must be discovered in the specific mode of production that a society has. He further argued that the mode of production substantively shaped the nature of the mode of distribution, the mode of circulation and the mode of consumption, all of which together constitute the economic sphere. To understand the way wealth was distributed and consumed, it was necessary to understand the conditions under which it was produced.

A mode of production is historically distinctive for Marx, because it constitutes part of an 'organic totality' (or self-reproducing whole) which is capable of constantly re-creating its own initial conditions, and thus perpetuate itself in a more or less stable ways for centuries, or even millennia. By performing social surplus labour in a specific system of property relations, the labouring classes constantly reproduce the foundations of the social order. Normally a mode of production shapes the mode of distribution, circulation and consumption, and is regulated by the state.

New productive forces will cause conflict in the current mode of production. When conflict arises the modes of production can evolve within the current structure or cause a complete breakdown.

The process of socioeconomic change

The process by which social and economic systems evolve is based on the premise of improving technology. Specifically, as the level of technology improves, existing forms of social relations become increasingly insufficient for fully exploiting technology. This generates internal inefficiencies within the broader socioeconomic system, most notably in the form of class conflict. The obsolete social arrangements prevent further social progress while generating increasingly severe contradictions between the level of technology (forces of production) and social structure (social relations, conventions and organization of production) which develop to a point where the system can no longer sustain itself, and is overthrown through internal social revolution that allows for the emergence of new forms of social relations that are compatible with the current level of technology (productive forces).

The fundamental driving force behind structural changes in the socioeconomic organization of civilization are underlying material concerns - specifically, the level of technology and extent of human knowledge and the forms of social organization they make possible. This comprises what Marx termed the materialist conception of history (see also: materialism), and is in contrast to an idealist analysis, which states that the fundamental driving force behind socioeconomic change are the ideas of enlightened individuals.

Main modes of production in history

In a broad outline, Marxist theory recognizes several distinctive modes of production characteristic of different epochs in human history:

Primitive communism

Human society is seen as organized in traditional tribe structures, typified by shared values and consumption of the entire social product. As no permanent surplus product is produced, there is also no possibility of a ruling class coming into existence. As this mode of production lacks differentiation into classes, it is said to be classless. Palaeolithic and Neolithic tools, pre- and early-agricultural production, and rigorous ritualized social control have often been said to be the typifying productive forces of this mode of production. However, the foraging mode of production still exists, and often typified in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies. Past theories of the foraging mode of production have focused on lack of control over food production. More recent scholarship has argued that hunter-gatherers use the foraging mode of production to maintain a specific set of social relations that, perhaps controversially, are said to emphasize egalitarianism and the collective appropriation of resources.

Asiatic mode of production

This is a controversial contribution to Marxist theory, initially used to explain pre-slave and pre-feudal large earthwork constructions in China, India, the Euphrates and Nile river valleys (and named on this basis of the primary evidence coming from greater "Asia"). The Asiatic mode of production is said to be the initial form of class society, where a small group extracts social surplus through violence aimed at settled or unsettled band communities within a domain. Exploited labour is extracted as forced corvee labour during a slack period of the year (allowing for monumental construction such as the pyramids, ziggurats, ancient Indian communal baths or the Chinese Great Wall). Exploited labour is also extracted in the form of goods directly seized from the exploited communities. The primary property form of this mode is the direct religious possession of communities (villages, bands, hamlets) and all those within them. The ruling class of this society is generally a semi-theocratic aristocracy which claims to be the incarnation of gods on earth. The forces of production associated with this society include basic agricultural techniques, massive construction and storage of goods for social benefit (granaries).

Antique or Ancient mode of production

Similar to the Asiatic mode, but differentiated in that the form of property is the direct possession of individual human beings. Additionally, the ruling class usually avoids the more outlandish claims of being the direct incarnation of a god, and prefers to be the descendants of gods, or seeks other justifications for its rule. Ancient Greek and Roman societies are the most typical examples of this mode. The forces of production associated with this mode include advanced (two field) agriculture, the extensive use of animals in agriculture, and advanced trade networks.

Feudalism

The feudal mode of production is usually typified by the systems of the West between the fall of the classical European culture and the rise of capitalism, though similar systems existed in most of the world. The primary form of property is the possession of land in reciprocal contract relations: the possession of human beings as peasants or serfs is dependent upon their being entailed upon the land. Exploitation occurs through reciprocated contract (though ultimately resting on the threat of forced extractions). The ruling class is usually a nobility or aristocracy. The primary forces of production include highly complex agriculture (two, three field, lucerne fallowing and manuring) with the addition of non-human and non-animal power devices (clockwork, wind-mills) and the intensification of specialisation in the crafts—craftsmen exclusively producing one specialised class of product.

Capitalism : Capitalist mode of production

Early Capitalism

The introduction of the capitalist mode of production spans the period from Mercantilism to Imperialism and is usually associated with the emergence of modern industrial society. The primary form of property is the possession of objects and services through state guaranteed contract. The primary form of exploitation is wage labour (see Das Kapital, wage slavery and exploitation). The ruling class is the bourgeoisie, which exploits the proletariat. Capitalism may produce one class (bourgeoisie) who possess the means of production for the whole of society and another class who possess only their own labour power, which they must sell in order to survive. The key forces of production include the overall system of modern production with its supporting structures of bureaucracy, and the modern state, and above all finance capital.

Late Capitalism

State capitalism and Corporate capitalism (also known as Monopoly capitalism), is a universal form encompassing all recent actually existing economic forms based on the nation state and global process of capital accumulation, whether avowedly capitalist or socialist, which was known only in its more or less pure capitalist forms in the time of Marx and Engels. Today this form predominates in the so-called modern mixed economy based largely on oligarchial multinational corporations with its highly socialized and globalized system of production. In particular, the failed centrally-planned economic systems of the defunct communist bloc nation states are not to be confused with communism as an actually existing mode of production in spite of, or more to the point as a result of, their (failed[6]) realization of central planning. Fredrick Engels hypothesized that state capitalism would emerge as the final form of capitalism before the contradictions reach a point where capitalism cannot sustain itself and socialism emerges as its successor.

The hallmark of late capitalism is consumerism and financialization, a process whereby "making money", literally, becomes the dominant industry - both of these practices are a means to sustain the flow and accumulation of capital.

Socialism

Socialism

The socialist mode of production is the post-capitalist economic system that emerges when the accumulation of capital is no longer sustainable due to falling rates of profit in (real) production, and social conflict arising from the contradictions between the level of technology and automation in the economy with the capitalist form of social organization. A socialist society would consist of production being carried out, organized in a manner to directly satisfy human needs, with the working-class cooperatively or publicly owning the means of production.

Communism

The ideal of communism did and does refer to a hypothetical future state of affairs where the good of all is obtained by scientific management (whence the name "scientific socialism") to obtain democratically determined social goals. Karl Marx made a distinction between "lower stage communism" and "upper-stage communism", with the former usually being called socialism.

Prefiguring forms of communism can be seen in communes and other collective living experiments. Communism is meant to be a classless society, with the management of things replacing the management of people. Particular productive forces are not described, but are assumed to be more or less within the reach of any contemporary capitalist society. Despite the imminent potential for communism, some economic theorists have hypothesized that communism is more than a thousand years away from full implementation and of course it is the position of anti-communists and those who have "buried" socialism that it will never be realized at all, that the capitalist mode is the end to which historical development drives and halts having reached its "perfect and eternal" form or that the whole concept of mode of production is a falacy all together. Engels and Marxist doctrine identify the emergence of communism as the reciprocal process to the "withering away" of the nation-state and the class system it supports.

Article Credit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production#Significance_of_concept

Origins of Social Stratification

In early societies, people shared a common social standing. As societies evolved and became more complex, they began to elevate some members. Today, stratification, a system by which society ranks its members in a hierarchy, is the norm throughout the world. All societies stratify their members. A stratified society is one in which there is an unequal distribution of society’s rewards and in which people are arranged hierarchically into layers according to how much of society’s rewards they possess. To understand stratification, we must first understand its origins.

Hunting and Gathering Societies

Hunting and gathering societies had little stratification. Men hunted for meat while women gathered edible plants, and the general welfare of the society depended on all its members sharing what it had. The society as a whole undertook the rearing and socialization of children and shared food and other acquisitions more or less equally. Therefore, no group emerged as better off than the others.

Horticultural, Pastoral, and Agricultural Societies

The emergence of horticultural and pastoral societies led to social inequality. For the first time, groups had reliable sources of food: horticultural societies cultivated plants, while pastoral societies domesticated and bred animals. Societies grew larger, and not all members needed to be involved in the production of food. Pastoral societies began to produce more food than was needed for mere survival, which meant that people could choose to do things other than hunt for or grow food.

Division of Labor and Job Specialization

Division of labor in agricultural societies led to job specialization and stratification. People began to value certain jobs more highly than others. The further someone was from actual agriculture work, the more highly he or she was respected. Manual laborers became the least respected members of society, while those engaged in “high culture,” such as art or music, became the most respected.

As basic survival needs were met, people began trading goods and services they could not provide for themselves and began accumulating possessions. Some accumulated more than others and gained prestige in society as a result. For some people, accumulating possessions became their primary goal. These individuals passed on what they had to future generations, concentrating wealth into the hands of a few groups.

Industrialized Societies

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in the mid-1700s, when the steam engine came into use as a means of running other machines. The rise of industrialization led to increased social stratification. Factory owners hired workers who had migrated from rural areas in search of jobs and a better life. The owners exploited the workers to become wealthy, making them work long hours in unsafe conditions for very low wages. The gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” widened.

The Improvement of Working Conditions

By the middle of the 1900s, workers had begun to secure rights for themselves, and the workplace became safer. Wages rose, and workers had something they had never had before: buying power. They could purchase homes, automobiles, and a vast array of consumer goods. Though their financial success was nothing compared to that of their bosses, the gap between the two was narrowing, and the middle class grew stronger.

At the same time, new forms of inequality took hold. The increasing sophistication and efficiency of factory machines led to the need for a different kind of worker—one who could not only operate certain kinds of equipment but could also read and write. The classification of the skilled worker was born. A skilled worker is literate and has experience and expertise in specific areas of production, or on specific kinds of machines. In contrast, many unskilled workers could neither read nor write English and had no specific training or expertise. The division arose between skilled and unskilled workers, with the former receiving higher wages and, as some would say, greater job security.

Postindustrial Societies

The rise of postindustrial societies, in which technology supports an information-based economy, has created further social stratification. Fewer people work in factories, while more work in service industries. Education has become a more significant determinant of social position. The Information Revolution has also increased global stratification. Even though new technology allows for a more global economy, it also separates more clearly those nations who have access to the new technology from those who don’t.

Article Credit: http://www.sparknotes.com/sociology/social-stratification-and-inequality/section1.rhtml

Branches of Sociology

Sociology is broadly defined as the study of human society. Society is vast and complex phenomenon and therefore it is generally debatable that which part of society should be studied by sociology. There is a great degree of difference of opinion regarding the definitions, scope and subject matter of sociology.

According to Durkheim sociology has broadly three principal divisions which he terms as social morphology, social physiology and general sociology. Social morphology covers the geographical settings, the density of population and other preliminary data which is likely to influence the social aspects. Social physiology is concerned with such dynamics processes as religion, morals, law, economic and political aspects, each of which may be the subject matter of a special discipline. General sociology is an attempt to discover the general social laws which may be derived from the specialized social processes. This is considered by Durkheim as the philosophical part of sociology.

Max Weber combines two schools of thought – ie historical and systematic and he adds something more. His analysis with regard to relations between economics and religion enables him to use both historical as well as systematic method. The sociologies of law, economics and religion are the special sociologies which are part of both systematic and historical methods of study.

According to Sorokin, Sociology can be divided into two branches- General Sociology and special sociology. General sociology studies the properties and uniformities common to all social and cultural phenomena in their structural and dynamic aspects. The inter-relationships between the socio-cultural and biological phenomena. In the structural aspect sociology studies various types of groups and institutions as well as their inter-relations to one another. In the dynamic aspect sociology studies various social processes like social contact, interaction, socialization, conflict, domination, subordination etc. Special sociologies study a specific socio-cultural phenomenon which is selected for detailed study. According to Sorokin, some of the most developed sociologies are Sociology of population, rural sociology, sociology of law, sociology of religion, sociology of knowledge, sociology of fine arts and many others.

Ginsberg has listed the problems of sociology under four aspects- social morphology, social control, social processes and social pathology. Social morphology includes investigation of the quantity and quality of population, the study of social structure or the description and classification of the principal types of social groups and institutions. Social control includes the study of law, morals, religion, conventions, fashions and other sustaining and regulating agencies. Social processes refer to the study of various modes of interactions between individuals or groups including cooperation and conflict, social differentiation and integration, development and decay. Social pathology refers to the study of social maladjustments and disturbances.

Raymond Aron has mentioned six schools in sociology. These are historical, formal, society and community, phenomenological, universalistic and general.

Sorokin has referred to the main currents of recent sociological thoughts in the following four branches of sociology-cosmo-sociology, bio-sociology, general sociology and special sociologies.

Sociology of Religion studies the church as a social institution inquiring into its origin, development and forms as well as into changes in its structure and function.

Sociology of Education studies the objectives of the school as a social institution, its curriculum and extracurricular activities and its relationship to the community and its other institutions.

Political sociology studies the social implications of various types of political movements and ideologies and the origin, development and functions of the government and the state.

Sociology of law concerns itself with formalized social control or with the processes whereby members of a group achieve uniformity in their behavior through the rules and regulations imposed upon them by society. It inquires into the factors that bring about the formation of regulatory systems as well as into the reasons for their adequacies and inadequacies as a means of control.

Social psychology seeks to understand human motivation and behavior as they are determined by society and its values. It studies the socialization process of the individual how he becomes a member of society- it also studies the public, crowd, the mob and various other social groupings and movements. Analysis of mass persuasion or propaganda and of public opinion has been one of its major interests.

Social psychiatry deals with the relationships between social and personal disorganization, its general hypothesis being that society through its excessive and conflicting demands upon the individual is to a large extent responsible for personal maladjustments such as various types of mental disorder and antisocial behavior. In its applied aspects it is concerned with remedying this situation.

Social disorganization deals with the problems of maladjustment and malfunctioning, including problems of crime and delinquency, poverty and dependency, population movements, physical and mental disease and vice. Of these sub-divisions crime and delinquency have received perhaps the greatest attention and have developed into the distinct fields of criminology.

Group relations is concerned with studying the problems arising out of the co-existence in a community of diverse racial and ethics groups. New areas and sub-areas of sociology are continuously evolving over the period of time.

Article Credit: http://www.sociologyguide.com/introduction-to-sociology/branches-of-sociology.php

Research Methods and Statistics

Social Survey

The basic procedure in survey is that people are asked a number of questions on that aspect of behavior which the sociologist is interested in. A number of people carefully selected so that their representation of their population being studied are asked to answer exactly the same question so that the replies to different categories of respondents may be examined for differences. One type of survey relies on contacting the respondents by letter and asking them to complete the questionnaire themselves before returning it. These are called Mail questionnaires. Sometimes questionnaires are not completed by individuals separately but by people in a group under the direct supervision of the research worker. A variation of the procedure can be that a trained interviewer asks the questions and records the responses on a schedule from each respondent.

These alternate procedures have different advantages and disadvantages. Mail questionnaires are relatively cheap and can be used to contact respondents who are scattered over a wide area. But at the same time the proportion of people who return questionnaires sent through post is usually rather small. The questions asked in main questionnaires have also to be very carefully worded in order to avoid ambiguity since the respondents cannot ask to have questions clarified for them. Using groups to complete questionnaires means that the return rate is good and that information is assembled quickly and fairly. Administrating the interview schedules to the respondents individually is probably the most reliable method. Several trained interviewers may be employed to contact specific individuals. The questionnaires and schedules can consist of both close-ended and open-ended questions. Also a special attention needs to be paid to ensure that the questionnaires are filled in logical order.

Where aptitude questions are included great care must be exercised to ensure the proper words are used. In case of schedules emphasis and interactions may also be standardized between different individuals and from respondents to respondents. Finally proper sampling techniques must be used to ensure that the sample under study represents the universe of study. In order to enhance the reliability of data collected through questionnaires and schedules, these questionnaires and schedules must be pretested through pilot studies.

Literature Review

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW?

A literature review is a description of the literature relevant to a particular field or topic. This is often written as part of a postgraduate thesis proposal, or at the commencement of a thesis. A critical literature review is a critical assessment of the relevant literature. It is unlikely that you will be able to write a truly critical assessment of the literature until you have a good grasp of the subject, usually at some point near the end of your thesis.

How does a literature review differ from other assignments?

The review, like other forms of expository writing, has an introduction, body and conclusion, well-formed paragraphs, and a logical structure. However, in other kinds of expository writing, you use relevant literature to support the discussion of your thesis; in a literature review, the literature itself is the subject of discussion.

What counts as 'literature'?

‘Literature’ covers everything relevant that is written on a topic: books, journal articles, newspaper articles, historical records, government reports, theses and dissertations, etc. The important word is 'relevant'. Check with your supervisor or tutor when in doubt.

WHY DO A LITERATURE REVIEW?

A literature review gives an overview of the field of inquiry: what has already been said on the topic, who the key writers are, what the prevailing theories and hypotheses are, what questions are being asked, and what methodologies and methods are appropriate and useful.

A critical literature review shows how prevailing ideas fit into your own thesis, and how your thesis agrees or differs from them.

HOW TO WRITE A LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Conduct the literature search

Find out what has been written on your subject. Use as many bibliographical sources as you can to find relevant titles. The following are likely sources:

Bibliographies and references in key textbooks and recent journal articles. Your supervisor or tutor should tell you which are the key texts and relevant journals.

Abstracting databases, such as PsycINFO, Medline, etc

Citation databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus.

Many abstracting journals and electronic databases are available through the University Library's Research Gateway.

A useful reference book for information searches:

Lane, Nancy D 1996. Techniques for Student Research: A Practical Guide. Second edition. Melbourne: Longman (UC library call number Z 711.2 L36).

Using the specialist librarians

The University Library has three specialist librarians, one for each Faculty. They can help you decide which databases and bibliographies are relevant to your field, and can advise you on other sources for your literature search. Use them!

2. Note the bibliographical details

Write down the full bibliographical details of each book or article as soon as you find a reference to it. This will save you an enormous amount of time later on.

3. Find the literature

Once you have what looks like a list of relevant texts, you have to find them.

• Use the UC library catalogue to see if the books and journals are held at UC.
• For ejournals, look at the A-Z listing.
• For books and journals, you can use the UC library pages to search other Canberra library catalogues (including the National Library).
• For journals, articles, theses, particularly on Austalian topics, use the Trove Database http://trove.nla.gov.au .
• If the book or journal you want is not held in Canberra, you may be able to access it through inter-library loans. Check with your supervisor to see if this facility is available to you. (Someone has to pay for inter-library loans!)

The full text of many journal articles can be found on electronic databases such as Business Source Complete, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect.

4. Read the literature

Before you begin to read a book or article, make sure you written down the full details (see note bibliographical 2 above).

Take notes as you read the literature. You are reading to find out how each piece of writing approaches the subject of your research, what it has to say about it, and (especially for research students) how it relates to your own thesis:

• Is it a general textbook or does it deal with a specific issue(s)?
• Is it an empirical report, a theoretical study, a sociological or political account, a historical overview, etc? All or some of these?
• Does it follow a particular school of thought?
• What is its theoretical basis?
• What definitions does it use?
• What is its general methodological approach? What methods are used?
• What kinds of data does it use to back up its argument?
• What conclusions does it come to?
• Other questions may be relevant. It depends on the purpose of the review.

Usually, you won’t have to read the whole text from first to last page. Learn to use efficient scanning and skimming reading techniques.

5. Write the review

Having gathered the relevant details about the literature, you now need to write the review. The kind of review you write, and the amount of detail, will depend on the level of your studies.

Important note: do not confuse a literature review with an annotated bibliography.

An annotated bibliography deals with each text in turn, describing and evaluating the text, using one paragraph for each text.

In contrast, a literature review synthesises many texts in one paragraph. Each paragraph (or section if it is a long thesis) of the literature review should classify and evaluate the themes of the texts that are relevant to your thesis; each paragraph or section of your review should deal with a different aspect of the literature.

Like all academic writing, a literature review must have an introduction, body, and conclusion.

The introduction should include:

• the nature of the topic under discussion (the topic of your thesis)
• the parameters of the topic (what does it include and exclude)?
• the basis for your selection of the literature

The conclusion should include:

• A summary of major agreements and disagreements in the literature
• A summary of general conclusions that are being drawn.
• A summary of where your thesis sits in the literature (Remember! Your thesis could become one of the future texts on the subject—how will later research students describe your thesis in their literature reviews?)

The body paragraphs could include relevant paragraphs on:

• historical background, including classic texts
• current mainstream versus alternative theoretical or ideological viewpoints, including differing theoretical assumptions, differing political outlooks, and other conflicts
• possible approaches to the subject (empirical, philosophical, historical, postmodernist, etc)
• definitions in use
• current research studies
• current discoveries about the topic
• principal questions that are being asked
• general conclusions that are being drawn
• methodologies and methods in use

… and so on.

article credit: http://www.canberra.edu.au/studyskills/writing/literature

Sex typing of Work

Anthropologist George Murdock (1937) analyzed data that researchers had reported on 324 societies around the world. He found that in all of them, activities are sex typed. Every society associates certain activities with one sex or the other. He also found that activities that are considered “female” in one society might be considered “male” in another.

He also found out that the making weapons and hunting was almost universally the domain of men, but in a few societies women participated in these activities.

Although Murdock found no specific work that was universally as- signed only to women, he did find that making clothing, cooking, carrying water, and grinding grain were almost always female tasks. In a few societies, however, such activities were regarded as men’s work.

Credit: Notes from James M Henslin, “Sociology- A Down to Earth Approach”

Biology Versus Culture view - Gender

Culture View

According to sociologist Cynthia Fuchs Epstein the differences between the behavior of males and females are solely the result of social factors specifically, socialization and social control. According to her the anthropological record shows greater equality between the sexes in the past. In earlier societies, women, as well as men, hunted small game, made tools, and gathered food. In hunting and gathering societies, the roles of both women and men are less rigid.

This proves that hunting and gathering societies exist in which women are not subordinate to men. Anthropologists claim that in these societies women have a separate but equal status. When these socially constructed barriers are removed, women’s work habits are similar to those of men. The types of work that men and women do in each society are determined not by biology but by social arrangements.

This division of work by gender serves the interests of men, and both informal customs and formal laws enforce it. Biology “causes” some human behaviors, but they are related to re- production or differences in body structure. Female crime rates are rising in many parts of the world. This indicates that aggression, which is often considered a male behavior dictated by biology, is related instead to social factors.

Biology View

Sociologist Steven Goldberg questions the premise that anyone should doubt “the presence of core-deep differences in males and females, differences of temperament and emotion of masculinity and femininity.”

Goldberg’s argument is that it is not environment but inborn differences that give masculine and feminine direction to the emotions and behaviors of men and women. The anthropological record shows that all societies are patriarchies Stories about long-lost matriarchies are myths.

                                                          

In all societies, past and present, the highest statuses are associated with men. In every society, “hierarchies overwhelmingly dominated by men” rule politics. Male dominance of society is “an inevitable resolution of the psychophysiological reality.” Socialization and social institutions merely reflect and sometimes exaggerate inborn tendencies.

Credit: Notes from James M Henslin, “Sociology- A Down to Earth Approach”

Theory on the origin of Patriarchy - Gender

The major theory of the origin of patriarchy men dominating society points to social consequences of human reproduction. In early human history, life was short therefore to balance the high death rate and maintain the population, women had to give birth to many children.

Consequently, around the world women assumed tasks that were associated with the home and child care, while men took over the hunting of large animals and other tasks that required both greater speed and longer absences from the base camp.

As a result, men became dominant. It was the men who left camp to hunt animals, who made contact with other tribes, who traded with these groups, and who quarreled and waged war with them. It was they who accumulated possessions in trade and gained prestige by returning to the camp triumphantly, leading captured prisoners or bringing large animals they had killed to feed the tribe.

In contrast, little prestige was given to the routine, taken-for- granted activities of women who were not perceived as risking their lives for the group. Eventually, men took over society. Their sources of power were their weapons, items of trade, and knowledge gained from contact with other groups. Women became second- class citizens, subject to men’s decisions.

Male dominance may be the result of some entirely different cause. For example, anthropologist Marvin Harris (1977) proposed that because most men are stronger than most women and survival in tribal groups required hand-to-hand combat, men became the warriors, and women became the reward that enticed men to risk their lives in battle.

Frederick Engels proposed that patriarchy came with the development of private property. He could not explain why private property should have produced male dominance, however. Gerda Lerner (1986) suggests that patriarchy may even have had different origins in different places.

Whatever its origins, a circular system of thought evolved. Men came to think of themselves as inherently superior based on the evidence that they dominated society. Even today, patriarchy is always accompanied by cultural supports designed to justify male dominance such as designating certain activities as “not appropriate” for women.

As tribal societies developed into larger groups, men, who enjoyed their power and privileges, maintained their dominance. Long after hunting and hand-to-hand combat ceased to be routine, and even after large numbers of children were no longer needed to maintain the population, men held on to their power. Male dominance in contemporary societies, then, is a continuation of a millennia-old pattern whose origin is lost in history.

Credit: Notes from James M Henslin, “Sociology- A Down to Earth Approach”

Gender

Around the world, gender is the primary division between people. Every society sort’s men and women into separate groups and give them different access to property, power, and prestige. These divisions always favor men as a group. This is known as gender stratification.

According to historian and feminist Gerda Lerner there is not a single society known where women-as-a-group have decision-making power over men (as a group). Consequently, sociologists classify females as a minority group.

Some analysts believe that in hunting and gathering societies, women and men were social equals and that agricultural societies also had less gender discrimination than is common today .In these societies, women may have contributed about 60 percent of the group’s total food. Yet, around the world, gender is the basis for discrimination.

Difference between sex and gender are defined as Sex refers to biological distinctions between males and females. It consists of both primary and secondary sex characteristics. Gender, in contrast, is what a society considers proper behaviors and attitudes for its male and female members. Sex physically distinguishes males from females; gender refers to what people call “masculine” and “feminine.”

Credit: Notes from James M Henslin, “Sociology- A Down to Earth Approach”

Forms of Domestic Violence

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

GENDER IDENTITY

Gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender. This is generally described as one's private sense of being a man or a woman, consisting primarily of the acceptance of membership into a category of people: male or female. All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a social identity in relation to other members of society. In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females. In all societies, however, some individuals do not identify with some (or all) of the aspects of gender that are assigned to their biological sex.

In most Western societies, there exists a gender binary, a social dichotomy that enforces conformance to the ideals of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of gender and sex - gender identity, gender expression and biological sex. Some societies have so-called third gender categories that can be used as a basis for a gender identity by people who are uncomfortable with the gender that is usually associated with their sex; in other societies, membership of any of the gender categories is open to people regardless of their sex.

Gender identity is usually formed by age three and is extremely difficult to change after that. The formation also commonly concludes between the ages of four and six. Gender identity is affected by influence of others, social interactions, and a child’s own personal interest. Understanding gender can be broken down into four parts: (1) understanding the concept of gender, (2) learning gender role standards and stereotypes, (3) identifying with parents, and (4) forming gender preference (Newman 243). A three year old can identify themselves as a boy or a girl, though they do not yet fully understand the implications of gender.[citation needed]

Gender identity is formed as children search for social cues and display approval for others based upon the gender with which the child identifies, though gender identity is very fluid among young children. Studies suggest that children develop gender identity in three distinct stages: as toddlers and preschoolers, they learn about defined characteristics, which are socialized aspects of gender; the second stage is consolidation, in which identity becomes rigid, around the ages of 5–7 years; after this "peak of rigidity," fluidity returns and socially defined gender roles relax somewhat.

Although the term "gender identity" was originally a medical term used to explain sex reassignment surgery to the public, it is most often found in psychology today, often as core gender identity. Although the formation of gender identity is not completely understood, many factors have been suggested as influencing its development. Biological factors that may influence gender identity include pre- and post-natal hormone levels and genetic makeup. Social factors which may influence gender identity include ideas regarding gender roles conveyed by family, authority figures, mass media, and other influential people in a child's life. Another factor that has a significant role in the process of gender identity is language, there are ways that certain words are associated with specific genders, "The relationship between language and gender has largely reflected how linguistic practices, among other kinds of practices, are used in the construction of social identities relating to issues of masculinity and femininity." (Adegoju,2000).[full citation needed] So children while learning a language learn to separate masculine and feminine characteristics and unconsciously adjust their own behavior to these predetermined roles. Children are often shaped and molded by the people surrounding them by trying to imitate and follow. One's gender identity is also influenced by the social learning theory, which assumes that children develop their gender identity through observing and imitating gender-linked behaviors, and then being rewarded or punished for behaving that way. In some cases, a person's gender identity may be inconsistent with their biological sex characteristics, resulting in individuals dressing and/or behaving in a way which is perceived by others as being outside cultural gender norms; these gender expressions may be described as gender variant or transgender.

Since the development of gender identity is influenced by many factors, it is understandable that there are diagnoses, disorders and conditions associated with it as well. One of the major diagnoses is gender identity disorder (GID). Gender identity disorder is the formal diagnosis to describe persons who experience significant dysphoria (discontent) with the sex they were assigned at birth and/or the gender roles associated with that sex. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (302.85) has five criteria that must be met before a diagnosis of gender identity disorder can be made. "In gender identity disorder, there is discordance between the natal sex of one's external genitalia and the brain coding of one's gender as masculine or feminine." Interestingly, gender identity disorder is also made up of more specific disorders, each of which focuses on the disorder in people of certain age groups. For example, gender identity disorder in children is specific to children who experience gender dysphoria.

Empowerment Approach

-          by Sara Hlupekile Longwe 

Sara Hlupekile Longwe is a consultant on gender and development based in Lusaka, Zambia. She was the chairperson of FEMNET between 1997 and 2003. She is the author of the Longwe Framework for Gender Analysis. Longwe describes herself as a radical feminist activist.

Sara Longwe. "Women’s Empowerment Framework."

The Women’s Empowerment Framework was developed by Sara Hlupekile Longwe as a way to conceptualize the process of empowerment through a sequence of measurable actions. The tool highlights the ascending levels of gender equality, although the levels are not linear in nature, but rather are conceptualized as reinforcing in nature. The path can be used as a frame of reference for progressive steps towards increasing equality, starting from meeting basic welfare needs to equality in the control over the means of production.

 Women's Empowerment Framework

Longwe developed the Women's Empowerment Framework, or Longwe Framework, published in 1990. This Gender analysis framework helps planners understand the practical meaning of women's empowerment and equality, and then to evaluate whether a development initiative supports this empowerment. The basic premise is that women's development can be viewed in terms of five levels of equality: welfare, access, "conscientization", participation and control. Empowerment is essential at each of these levels. Welfare addresses basic needs, and access addresses ability to use resources such as credit, land and education. "Conscientization" is a key element of the framework: recognition that discrimination creates gender-related problems and women may themselves contribute to this discrimination. With participation, women are equal to men in making decisions, and with control the balance of powers between the genders is equal.

The five “levels of equality” in the Women’s Empowerment Framework include:

·         Welfare, meaning improvement in socioeconomic status, such as income, better nutrition, etc. This level produces nothing to empower women.

·         Access, meaning increased access to resources. This is the first step in empowerment as women increase their access relative to men.

·         Conscientisation, involving the recognition of structural forces that disadvantage and discriminate against women coupled with the collective aim to address these discriminations.

·         Mobilization, implementing actions related to the conscientisation of women.

·         Control, involving the level of access reached and control of resources that have shifted as a result of collective claim making and action. 

The model is explicitly political, linking women’s inequality and poverty to structural oppression. As such, in order to secure women’s equality and empowerment, both materially and financially, women must be empowered. The tool examines a program, such as a health or education intervention, to assess how it influences the five levels of empowerment, i.e., negatively, positively, or neutrally. It postulates an ascending level of equality impacts that can be tracked and assessed over time to see if progression or regression is taking place.

Strengths of the Women’s Empowerment Framework: 

The Women’s Empowerment Framework may assist organizations in developing more explicit programmatic strategies that aim to fundamentally shift the bases of gender inequality.

Gendered assumptions of equality are made explicit. This provides an excellent opportunity for a feminist context analysis, highlighting the political dimensions of gender inequality.

The three levels of a program effect, e.g., positive, neutral, or negative impact, can be easily compared across programs. This also helps clarify areas of program strength and weakness, which can be used for program learning purposes.

It is unique in explicitly allowing negative impacts to be located and analyzed.

Weaknesses (or not designed for):

The Women’s Empowerment Framework is not designed to explain how or why a program works, exploring the contributing or causal factors that led to the progression from one level of impact to the next. 

Focus is only placed on three levels of equality, e.g., positive, neutral, or negative impact, which limits important qualitative assessments of “success” that provide valuable information critical for program improvement.

The assumption that there is a hierarchy of gender equality levels suggests a somewhat more linear change trajectory than is often found in practice.

World System Approach - Dependency Theory

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system."

The theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that therefore the task in helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy.

Background                         

Dependency Theory developed in the late 1950s under the guidance of the Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, Raul Prebisch. Prebisch and his colleagues were troubled by the fact that economic growth in the advanced industrialized countries did not necessarily lead to growth in the poorer countries. Indeed, their studies suggested that economic activity in the richer countries often led to serious economic problems in the poorer countries. Such a possibility was not predicted by neoclassical theory, which had assumed that economic growth was beneficial to all (Pareto optimal) even if the benefits were not always equally shared. Prebisch's initial explanation for the phenomenon was very straightforward: poor countries exported primary commodities to the rich countries that then manufactured products out of those commodities and sold them back to the poorer countries. The "Value Added" by manufacturing a usable product always cost more than the primary products used to create those products. Therefore, poorer countries would never be earning enough from their export earnings to pay for their imports. Prebisch's solution was similarly straightforward:  poorer countries should embark on programs of import substitution so that they need not purchase the manufactured products from the richer countries. The poorer countries would still sell their primary products on the world market, but their foreign exchange reserves would not be used to purchase their manufactures from abroad. Three issues made this policy difficult to follow. The first is that the internal markets of the poorer countries were not large enough to support the economies of scale used by the richer countries to keep their prices low. The second issue concerned the political will of the poorer countries as to whether a transformation from being primary products producers was possible or desirable. The final issue revolved around the extent to which the poorer countries actually had control of their primary products, particularly in the area of selling those products abroad. These obstacles to the import substitution policy led others to think a little more creatively and historically at the relationship between rich and poor countries. At this point dependency theory was viewed as a possible way of explaining the persistent poverty of the poorer countries. The traditional neoclassical approach said virtually nothing on this question except to assert that the poorer countries were late in coming to solid economic practices and that as soon as they learned the techniques of modern economics, then the poverty would begin to subside. However, Marxists theorists viewed the persistent poverty as a consequence of capitalist exploitation. And a new body of thought, called the world systems approach, argued that the poverty was a direct consequence of the evolution of the international political economy into a fairly rigid division of labor which favored the rich and penalized the poor.

Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the external influences--political, economic, and cultural--on national development policies (Osvaldo Sunkel, "National Development Policy and External Dependence in Latin America," The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 6, no. 1, October 1969, p. 23). Theotonio Dos Santos emphasizes the historical dimension of the dependency relationships in his definition: [Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected. (Theotonio Dos Santos, "The Structure of Dependence," in K.T. Fann and Donald C. Hodges, eds., Readings in U.S. Imperialism. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1971, p. 226).

Dependency theory became popular in the 1960’s as a response to research by Raul Prebisch. Prebisch found that increases in the wealth of the richer nations appeared to be at the expense of the poorer ones.

In its extreme form, dependency theory is based on a Marxist view of the world, which sees globalization in terms of the spread of market capitalism, and the exploitation of cheap labour and resources in return for the obsolete technologies of the West.  The dominant view of dependency theorists is that there is a dominant world capitalist system that relies on a division of labour between the rich 'core' countries and poor 'peripheral' countries. Over time, the core countries will exploit their dominance over an increasingly marginalized periphery.

Dependency theory advocated an inward looking approach to development and an increased role for the state in terms of imposing barriers to trade, making inward investment difficult and promoting nationalization of key industries.

Although still a popular theory in history and sociology, dependency theory has disappeared from the mainstream of economic theory since the collapse of Communism in the early 1990s. The considerable inefficiencies associated with state involvement in the economy and the growth of corruption, have been dramatically exposed in countries that have followed this view of development, most notably a small number of African economies, including Zimbabwe.

Theory

Meta Theory

A metatheory or meta-theory is a theory whose subject matter is some theory. All fields of research share some meta-theory, regardless whether this is explicit or correct. In a more restricted and specific sense, in mathematics and mathematical logic, metatheory means a mathematical theory about another mathematical theory.

The following is an example of a meta-theoretical statement:

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

Meta-theoretical investigations are generally part of philosophy of science. Also a metatheory is an object of concern to the area in which the individual theory is conceived.

Grand Theory

A Grand theory refers to any theory that attempts to offer an overall explanation of history, social life and the human experience. The grand theory is normally compared and differentiated with empiricism positivism, which opines that understanding can only be achieved through studying societies and phenomenon.

Grand Theory is a term invented by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills in The Sociological Imagination to refer to the form of highly abstract theorizing in which the formal organization and arrangement of concepts takes priority over understanding the social world. In his view, Grand Theory was more or less separated from the concrete concerns of everyday life and its variety in time and space.

The main target of Mills was Talcott Parsons, also an American sociologist and the architect of structural functionalism, against whom he insisted that there is no Grand Theory in the sense of one universal scheme to understand the unity of social structures, according to Gregory. In Parsons view "grand theory" integrated not only sociological concepts, but also psychological, economic, political, and religious or philosophical components. He tried to integrate all the social sciences within an overarching theoretical framework.

By the 1980s the Grand Theory was reformulated and included theories such as; critical theory, structuralism, structural Marxism, and Structuration Theory, all influenced human geography. Barnes and Gregory confirmed this and noticed in addition; “No matter the phenomenon investigated, it could always be slotted into a wider theoretical scheme. Nothing would be left out; everything would be explained.”

According to Gregory there are two critical responses to this (reformulated) Grand Theory. First there has been a continuing debate about the scope of theory in human geography, with the focus on the relation between theory and empiricism. Wherein some authors thought of a ‘theory-less world of empiricism’, in contrast to others which foresaw a fixation upon theory, meaning the threat of the ‘theorization of theories’, second order abstractions ‘doubly removed from the empirical world’. Secondly, that no single theoretical system can possibly ask all the interesting questions or provide all the satisfying answers.

Substantive Theory

A substantive theory may be constructed within the process of identifying differences and similarities of contextualized instances, and patterns, across and within case studies focused on a similar theme. The content of substantive theory is mainly descriptive, focused on the essence, or substance, of the numerous case instances in a parsimonious relational structure. In the construction of substantive theory the theorizer seeks to enhance understanding by identifying similarities and differences of contextualized instances across and within case studies focused on a similar theme. For the most part the instances include an element of intentionality. Suppose a researcher has collected many case studies on a common theme, say, unemployment or public housing or school principals. He reads these and notes instances and patterns of similarity and difference as well as instances that seem to relate only and specifically to a particular case study.

Middle Range Theory

Middle-range theory, developed by Robert K. Merton, is an approach to sociological theorizing aimed at integrating theory and empirical research. It is currently the de facto dominant approach to sociological theory construction, especially in the United States. Middle-range theory starts with an empirical phenomenon (as opposed to a broad abstract entity like the social system) and abstracts from it to create general statements that can be verified by data. This approach stands in contrast to the earlier "grand" theorizing of social theory, such as functionalism and many conflict theories. Raymond Boudon has argued that "middle-range theory" is the same concept that most other sciences simply call 'theory'. The analytical sociology movement has as its aim the unification of such theories into a coherent paradigm at a greater level of abstraction.

Sociological theory, if it is to advance significantly, must proceed on these interconnected planes: 1. by developing special theories from which to derive hypotheses that can be empirically investigated and 2. by evolving a progressively more general conceptual scheme that is adequate to consolidate groups of special theories.

— Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure

History

The midrange approach was developed by Robert Merton as a departure from the general social theorizing of Talcott Parsons. Merton agreed with Parsons that a narrow empiricism consisting entirely of simple statistical or observational regularities cannot arrive at successful theory. However, he found that Parsons' "formulations were remote from providing a problematic and a direction for theory-oriented empirical inquiry into the observable worlds of culture and society". He was thus directly opposed to the abstract theorizing of scholars who are engaged in the attempt to construct a total theoretical system covering all aspects of social life. With the introduction of the middle range theory program, he advocated that sociologists should concentrate on measurable aspects of social reality that can be studied as separate social phenomena, rather than attempting to explain the entire social world. He saw both the middle-range theory approach and middle-range theories themselves as temporary: when they matured, as natural sciences already had, the body of middle range theories would become a system of universal laws; but, until that time, social sciences should avoid trying to create a universal theory.

Merton's original foil in the construction was Talcott Parsons, whose action theory Merton classified as a "grand theory". (Parsons vehemently rejected this categorization.) Middle range theories are normally constructed by applying theory building techniques to empirical research, which produce generic propositions about the social world, which in turn can also be empirically tested. Examples of middle range theories are theories of reference groups, social mobility, normalization processes, role conflict and the formation of social norms. The middle-range approach has played a key role in turning sociology into an increasingly empirically-oriented discipline. This was also important in post-war thought.

In the post-war period, middle-range theory became the dominant approach to theory construction in all variable-based social sciences. Middle range theory has also been applied to the archaeological realm by Lewis R. Binford, and to financial theory by Harvard Business School Professor Robert C. Merton, Robert K. Merton's son.

In the recent decades, the analytical sociology program has emerged as an attempt synthesizing middle-range theories into a more coherent abstract framework (as Merton had hoped would eventually happen). Peter Hedstrom at Oxford is the scholar most associated with this approach, while Peter Bearman is its most prominent American advocate.

Domestic violence

Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, dating abuse, and intimate partner violence (IPV), is a pattern of behavior which involves the abuse by one partner against another in an intimate relationship such as marriage, cohabitation, dating or within the family. Domestic violence can take many forms, including physical aggression or assault (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects, battery), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; controlling or domineering; intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse (e.g., neglect); and economic deprivation.

Alcohol consumption and mental illnesscan be co-morbid with abuse, and present additional challenges in eliminating domestic violence. Awareness, perception, definition and documentation of domestic violence differs widely from country to country, and from era to era.

Domestic violence and abuse is not limited to obvious physical violence. Domestic violence can also mean endangerment, criminal coercion, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, trespassing, harassment, and stalking.

Laws on domestic violence vary by country. While it is generally outlawed in the Western World, this is not the case in many developing countries. For instance, in 2010, the United Arab Emirates's Supreme Court ruled that a man has the right to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he does not leave physical marks. The social acceptability of domestic violence also differs by country. While in most developed countries domestic violence is considered unacceptable by most people, in many regions of the world the views are different: according to a UNICEF survey, the percentage of women aged 15–49 who think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances is, for example: 90% in Afghanistan and Jordan, 87% in Mali, 86% in Guinea and Timor-Leste, 81% in Laos, 80% in Central African Republic. Refusing to submit to a husband's wishes is a common reason given for justification of violence in developing countries: for instance 62.4% of women in Tajikistan justify wife beating if the wife goes out without telling the husband; 68% if she argues with him; 47.9% if she refuses to have sex with him.

Traditionally, in most cultures, men had a legal right to use violence to "discipline" their wives. Although in the US and many European countries this right was removed from them in the late 19th/early 20th century, before the 1970s criminal arrests were very rare (occurring only in cases of extreme violence), and it was only in the 1990s that rigorous enforcement of laws against domestic violence became standard policy in Western countries.