Sociology

SOCIOLOGY
Part II
Table of Contents
1. Stratification and mobility ..................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Concepts: equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion, poverty and deprivation ............. 3
1.2. Poverty ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.3. Theories of social stratification....................................................................................... 9
1.4. Dimensions of social stratification - gender, ethnicity and race .................................. 14
1.5. Social mobility ............................................................................................................... 19
1.6. Sources and causes of mobility..................................................................................... 20
2. Work and economic life ....................................................................................................... 23
2.1. Social organization of work in different types of society ............................................. 23
2.2. Formal and informal organization of work ................................................................... 24
2.3. Labour and society ........................................................................................................ 25
3. Politics and society............................................................................................................... 32
3.1. Sociological theories of power...................................................................................... 32
3.2. Bureaucracy .................................................................................................................. 36
3.3. Pressure groups and political parties ........................................................................... 39
3.4. Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology ...................................... 42
3.5. Social movements and revolution ................................................................................ 49
4. Religion and society ............................................................................................................. 56
4.1. Sociological theories of religion .................................................................................... 56
4.2. Types of religious practices: animism, monism, pluralism, sects, cults........................ 58
4.3. Religion and science, secularization, religious revivalism, fundamentalism ................ 62
5. Systems of Kinship ............................................................................................................... 66
5.1. Family ............................................................................................................................ 66
5.2. Household ..................................................................................................................... 73
5.3. Marriage........................................................................................................................ 73
5.4. Lineage and descent ..................................................................................................... 75
5.5. Patriarchy and sexual division of labour ....................................................................... 77
5.6. Other related concepts ................................................................................................. 82
6. Social change in modern society ......................................................................................... 84
6.1. Sociological theories of social change .......................................................................... 84
6.2. Development and dependency..................................................................................... 88
6.3. Agents of social change ................................................................................................ 90
6.4. Education and social change......................................................................................... 92
© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 1

6.5. Science, technology and social change ......................................................................... 93
7. Other important topics ........................................................................................................ 96

1. Stratification and mobility
Although people have long dreamed of an egalitarian society in which all members are
equal, such a society has never existed. All human societies from the simplest to the
most complex have some form of social inequality.
1.1. Concepts: equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion, poverty and deprivation
Social inequality
Social inequality refers to unequal distribution of power, prestige or wealth.
1. Power: Power refers to the degree to which individuals or group can impose
their will on others, with or without the consent of those others.
2. Prestige: Prestige refers to the amount of esteem of honour associated with
social positions, qualities of individuals and styles of life.
3. Wealth: Wealth refers to material possessions defined as valuable in particular
societies.
Social stratification
Social stratification is defined as a process of differentiation that places some people
higher than the others (Sutherland and Maxwell).
As a social process, it has four sub processes:
1. Differentiation: Differences exist socially as well as naturally, and they exist in
every society.
2. Evaluation: Differences are evaluated in terms of prestige, desirability and so
on. It leads to the feeling of superiority and inferiority among people with
differences.
3. Ranking: The differences and inequalities also don’t exist in objective state, but
are compared. Ranking is applied on people who share a common
characteristic which are evaluated in terms of desirability and undesirability.
4. Rewarding: After differentiation and evaluation, society develops a system of
rewards and punishment in form of differential opportunities to those
belonging to different strata.
Sociologists generally distinguish four main types of social stratification - slavery,
estate, caste, and social class. Stratification divides a society into higher and lower
social units. Stratification involves unequal distribution of rights and privileges among
the members of a society. Sorokin asserts that there can be no society without
stratification.
Difference between social stratification and social inequality: Social inequality simply
refers to the existence of socially created inequality. Social stratification is a particular
form of social inequality where social groups are ranked one above the other. Those

who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common
interests and a common identity. They will share a similar lifestyle which to some
degree will distinguish them from members of other social strata. They enjoy or suffer
the unequal distribution of rewards in society as members of different social groups.
The Indian caste system provides an example of a social stratification system.
Social hierarchy
Hierarchy refers to ranking of individuals or social groups on above the other. In
general, social inequalities lead to social stratification, and social stratification leads
to hierarchy. It has been suggested that in modern times, hierarchy of social groups
has been replaced by a hierarchy of individuals.
Social exclusion
Social exclusion refers to a situation in which multiple deprivations prevents
individuals from participating in important areas from areas of society’s activities.
According to Ruth Lister, social exclusion refers to ways in which individuals may
become cut off from full involvement in the wider society. Social exclusion prevent
individuals or groups from having opportunities that open to the majority of the
population.
Features of social exclusion:
1. It is systematic i.e. it is a result of structural features of society.
2. It indicates deprivation of opportunities.
3. It is involuntary. It is practiced regardless of the wishes of those who are
excluded. For example, rich people are never found sleeping on pavements or
under bridges like thousands of homeless poor people in cities.
4. Prolonged exclusion leads to a reaction against inclusion. Excluded individuals
or groups would not seek inclusion after prolonged exclusion, instead they
would create their own sub-culture. For example, the denial of temple entry
for the dalits in India for decades together by the upper castes may compel the
dalits to build their own temples or covert to other religion.
Homelessness is one of the worst forms of social exclusions according to Anthony
Giddens as it automatically excludes an individual from various other services.
Poverty
Poverty is a social problem which is often expressed in terms of lack of resources which
are required for a minimum standard of life. Poverty can be understood in three ways
- absolute, relative and subjective.
Absolute poverty: Poverty defined in absolute terms refers to a state in which the
individual lack the resources necessary for subsistence. Absolute poverty is often
known as subsistence poverty since it is based on assessments of minimum

subsistence requirements. It is usually measured by pricing the basic necessities of life,
drawing a poverty line in terms of this price, and defining as poor those whose income
falls below this figure. Some concepts of absolute poverty go beyond the material
needs by introducing the idea of ‘basic cultural needs’. Drewnowski and Scott include
education, security, leisure and recreation in their category of basic cultural needs.
The concept of absolute poverty has been widely criticized as it is based on the
assumption that there are minimum basic needs for all people, in all societies. Such
needs vary both between and within societies. The concept of absolute poverty is even
more difficult to defend when it is broadened to include the idea of ‘basic cultural
needs’. Such needs vary from time to time and place to pace, and any attempt to
establish absolute, fixed standards is bound to fail. For example, recreational needs
are largely determined by the culture of a particular society.
Relative poverty: Poverty defined in absolute terms refers to a state in which the
individual lack the resources to lead a life with reasonable and acceptable standard of
living according to the conventions of the day. Peter Townsend argues that,
‘individuals, families and groups of population can be said to be in poverty when they
lack the resources to obtain the types of diets, participate in the activities and have
the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely
encouraged and approved in the societies to which they belong’. The argument for
relative standards rests on the assumption that for practical purposes standards
become so fluid that no definition of need, no matter how broad, satisfies the ever
changing expectations of modern life. This is put in a nutshell by I.M. Rubinow,
‘Luxuries become comforts, comforts become necessaries’. For example, few decades
ago in India having a mobile phone was a luxury, but today it is a necessity. Thus in
Townsend’s words, any definition of poverty must be related to the needs and
demands of a changing society.
There are, however, a number of problems with the concept of relative poverty. It
cannot be assumed that there are society wide standards of reasonable and
acceptable life styles. Within a particular society, ethnicity, class, age, religion, region
and a variety of other factors can vary judgements of reasonable living standards. For
example, acceptable standards for lower class may differ significantly from those of
the middle class. The concept of relative poverty also poses problems for the
comparison of the poor in the same society over time, and between societies.
Subjective poverty: Subjective poverty refers to whether or not individuals or groups
feel that they are poor. Subjective poverty is closely related to relative poverty since
those who are defined as poor in terms of the standards of the day will probably see
and themselves to be poor. However, this is not necessarily the case. For example, a
formerly wealthy individual reduce by circumstances to a modest lower middle class
income and lifestyle may feel poor but other members of society may not regard him
as such.

Amartya Sen on poverty: Amartya Sen defined poverty as a failure to achieve
certain minimum capabilities. Poverty is seen as not having the capability to realize
one’s full potential as a human being.
Deprivation
Deprivation refers to denial of access to resources (social, economic or cultural)
required for self-development and fulfilment of basic necessities.
Absolute deprivation refers to a situation when one doesn’t have even basic
necessities of life like food, sanitation, drinking water, basic education, and health.
Extreme poverty, marginalization and huger are examples of absolute deprivation.
Relative deprivation refers to deprivation experienced when individuals compare
themselves with others.
1.2. Poverty
Poverty is a social problem which is often expressed in terms of lack of resources which
are required for a minimum standard of life.
Theories of poverty
1. Poverty as a positive feedback system: This theory, sometimes known as the
‘vicious circle’ theory of poverty, argues that the various circumstances of the
poor combine to maintain them in poverty. They are trapped in the situation
with little chance of escaping. The vicious cycle, in which poverty breeds,
occurs through time, and transmits its effects from one generation to another.
There is no beginning to the cycle, no end. This theory view poverty as a
positive feedback system, that is a system in which each part reinforces the
others so as to maintain the system as a whole. For example, poor have
inadequate diets. Poor nutrition during pregnancy can hinder foetal brain
development. This may result in poor educational attainments and hampers
the chances of getting out of poverty.
This theory is inadequate as an explanation of poverty. Instead of answering
the question, ‘Why poverty?’ it focuses on the question, ‘Once poverty exists,
how it is maintained?’
2. The culture of poverty: The idea of culture of poverty was introduced by Oscar
Lewis in 1950s. According to this theory, responses to circumstances of poverty
develop into a culture of poverty, a relatively distinct subculture of poor with
its own norms and values. According to Oscar Lewis, the major characteristics
of the culture of poverty are
i) a strong feeling of marginality, of helplessness, of dependence and
inferiority

ii) a strong present time orientation with relatively little ability to defer
gratification
iii) a sense of resignation and fatalism
iv) lack of effective participation and integration in the major institutions
of the larger society (for e.g. poor do not participate in trade unions)
The culture of poverty is seen as a response by the poor to their position in
society. However, the culture of poverty goes beyond a mere reaction to a
situation. It takes on the force of culture since its characteristics are guides to
action which are internalized by the poor and passed on from one generation
to another. There is, in short, a language of poor, a psychology of poor and a
world view of the poor. As such the culture of poverty tends to perpetuate
poverty since its characteristics can be seen as mechanisms which maintain
poverty: attitudes of fatalism lead to acceptance of the situation; failure to join
trade unions and other organisations lead weaken the potential power of the
poor. The culture of poverty suggests that if the circumstances which produced
poverty were to disappear, the culture of poverty may well continue.
Since its introduction, the culture of poverty theory has met with sustained
criticism.
i) Firstly, the actual existence of a culture of poverty has been
questioned.
ii) Secondly, the behaviour which characterizes the culture of poverty is
argued to be due to situational constraints rather than cultural
patterns.
iii) Thirdly, it is argued that once situational constraints are removed,
much or all that is distinctive about the behaviour of the poor will
disappear.
3. Situational constraints: Situational constraints theory views the behaviour of
poor as a reaction to situational constraints rather than as a response to
established and internalized cultural patterns. In other words, the poor are
constrained by the facts of their situation - by low income, unemployment and
the like - to act the way they do, rather than being directed by a culture of
poverty. The situational constraints argument suggest that the poor would
readily change their behaviour in response to a new set of circumstances once
the constraints of poverty were removed. The situational constraints theory
also attacks the view that poor are largely insulated from mainstream norms
and values. It argues that the poor shares the values of society as a whole, the
only difference being they are unable to translate many of those values into
reality.

Paradox of poverty: Contrary to perception, poverty is expensive. According to
David Caplovitz, the poor pay more for same goods and services than non-poors.
The poor tend to buy smaller quantities of goods, particularly food, than the non-
poor because they cannot afford to buy in bulk and often do not have refrigerators.
This raises the prices of goods since small quantities are more expensive to package
and handle. Thus, in one sense, poor pay higher because they cannot afford lower
prices. Poor often live beyond the boundaries of metropolitan cities as they cannot
afford housing in the city. The poor therefor have to travel further to their place of
work in city than the non-poor. Thus poverty adds to cost of travel.
Poverty and stratification

1. Marxian perspective: From a Marxian perspective, poverty is a result of
unequal rewards for work. Unequal rewards maintain the motivation of the
workforce with in a capitalist system. Poverty also provides a pool of cheap
labour, on which many labour intensive capitalist industries depend on profit.
Poverty results in a fragmented working class which make it difficult for
working class to unite. Westergaard and Resler argue that poverty exists
because of the operation of a capitalist economic system which prevents the
poor from obtaining the financial resources to become non-poor. Kincaid
summarizes the situation in the following way, ‘It is not simply that there are
rich and poor. It is rather that some are rich because some are poor’. Thus
poverty can be only be understood in terms of the operation of class system
as a whole since the question ‘Why poverty’ is basically the same as ‘Why
wealth?’ Therefore from a Marxian perspective, poverty like wealth, is an
inevitable consequence of a capitalist system.
2. Weberian perspective: Weber argues that an individual’s class situation is
dependent upon his ‘market situation’, on the amount of power he has to
influence the workings of the market in his favour and on the rewards his skill
and expertise can command in a competitive market. From this perspective
groups such as aged, the chronically sick, and single parent families have little
power in the market and therefore receive little reward. In terms of power,
poor are the weakest group competing for the scarce and valued resources in
society. Because of their lack of income, the poor do not have the resources to
forms powerful groups and sustain pressure. Their bargaining position is
weakened still further by their inability to mobilize widespread working class
support, since non-poor members of working class tend not to see their
interests and those of poor as similar.
3. Functional perspective: Herbert Gans argues that ‘poverty survives in part
because it is useful to a number of groups in society’. Poverty benefits the non-
poor in general and the rich and powerful in particular. Functions of poverty
can be summarized as follows:

i) Every economy has a number of temporary, dead-end, dirty, dangerous
and menial jobs. The existence of poverty ensures that such work is
done. Gans argue that the poverty functions to provide a low wage
labour pool that is willing or rather unable to be unwilling to perform
dirt work at low cost. Thus at one and the same time, poverty ensures
that ‘dirty jobs’ are done and, by getting them done cheaply, subsidizes
the non-poor sections of the population.
ii) Poverty directly provides employment and financial security for a fast
growing section of the labour force. In Gans’ words, ‘Poverty creates
jobs for a number of occupations and professions that serve the poor,
or shield the rest from the population from them’. These include the
police, probation officers, social workers, doctors and the
administrators who see the ‘poverty industry’. However altruistic
motives their motives, Gans suggest that those employed to deal with
the poor have vested interest in poverty.
iii) Presence of poor provides reassurance and support for the rest of
society. They provide as baseline of failure which reassures the non-
poor of their worth. Gans claims that ‘poverty helps to guarantee the
status of those who are non-poor’. It does this by providing ‘a reliable
and relatively permanent measuring rod for status comparison’.
Further, Gans argues that the poor functions to reinforce mainstream
norms since norms are best legitimated by discovering violations. For
instance, the defenders of the desirability of hard work, honesty and
monogamy need people who can be accused of being lazy, dishonest
and promiscuous to justify these norms.
1.3. Theories of social stratification
Structural functionalist theory

Functionalists tend to see the relationship between social groups in society as one of
cooperation and interdependence. Particularly in complex industrial societies,
different groups specializes in particular activities. As no one group is self-sufficient it
cannot meet the needs of its members. It must therefore exchange goods and services
with other groups. This relationship extends to the strata in a stratification system.
Talcott Parsons
Parson argues that stratification systems derive from common values. ‘Stratification,
in its valuation aspect, then, is the ranking of units in accordance with the common
value system’. Thus those who perform successfully in terms of society’s value will be
ranked highly and they will be likely to receive a variety of rewards. Parsons’ argument
suggests that stratification is an inevitable part of all human societies. It also follows
from Parsons’ arguments that there is a general belief that stratification systems are
just, right, and proper, since they are basically an expression of shared values.

According to him, power and prestige differentials are essential for the coordination
and integration of a specialized division of labour. He argues that inequalities of power
and prestige benefit all members of society since they serve to further collective goals
which are based on shared values.
Parsons sees social stratification as both inevitable and functional. It is inevitable
because it derives from shared values which are a necessary part of all social system.
It is functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society.
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore
The most famous functionalist theory of stratification was presented by Davis and
Moore in 1945. Davis and Moore begin with the observation that stratification exists
in every known human society. They argue that all social systems share certain
functional prerequisites which must be met if the system is to survive and operate
efficiently. One such functional prerequisite is effective role allocation and
performance. This means that
i) Firstly, all roles must be filled.
ii) Secondly that they be filled by those best able to perform them.
iii) Thirdly that the necessary training for them be undertaken.
iv) Fourthly that the roles be performed conscientiously.
Davis and Moore argue that all societies need some mechanism for insuring effective
role allocation and performance. This mechanism is social stratification which they see
as a system which attaches unequal rewards and privileges to the different positions
in society.
If the people and positions which make up society did not differ in important respects
there would be no need for stratification. However, people differ in terms of their
innate ability and talent. Positions differ in terms of their importance for the survival
and maintenance of society. Certain positions are more ‘functionally important’ than
other. They require special skills for their effective performance and there a limited
number of individuals with the necessary ability to acquire such skills. A major function
of stratification is to match the most able people with the functionally most important
positions. It does this by attaching high rewards to those positions. The desire for such
rewards motivates people to compete for them and in theory the most talented will
win through. Thus Davis and Moore conclude that social stratification is a ‘device by
which societies insure that most important positions are conscientiously filled by the
most qualified persons’.
Davis and Moore realise that one difficulty with their theory is to show clearly which
positions are functionally more important. The fact that a position is highly rewarded
does not necessarily mean it is functionally important. They suggest that the
importance of a position can be measured in two ways -
i) Firstly, by the degree to which a position is functionally unique, there being
no other position that can perform the same function satisfactorily. Thus it

could be argued that a doctor is functionally more important than a nurse
since his position carries with it many of the skills necessary to perform a
nurse’s role but not vice versa.
ii) The second measure is the degree to which other positions are dependent on
the one in question. Thus it may be argued that managers are more important
than routine office staff since the latter are dependent on direction and
organization from management.
Melvin Tumin - Criticism of Davis and Moore
1. Davis and Moore have tended to assume that the most highly rewarded
positions are indeed the most important. Many occupations which afford little
prestige or economic reward are also vital to society. Tumin argues that ‘some
labour force of unskilled workmen is as important and as indispensable to the
factory as some labour force of engineers. In fact a number of sociologists have
argued that there is no objective way of measuring of functional importance
of positions.
2. Davis and Moore have ignored the influence of power on the unequal
distribution of rewards. Thus differences in pay and prestige between
occupational groups may be due to differences in their power rather than their
functional importance.
3. Davis and Moore assume that only a limited number of individuals have the
talent to acquire the skills necessary for the functionally most important
positions. Tuman regards this as a very questionable assumption. Firstly, an
effective method of measuring talent and ability has yet to be devised.
Secondly there is no proof that exceptional talents are required for these
positions which Davis and Moore consider important. Thirdly, the pool of
talent in society may be considerably larger than Davis and Moore assume.
4. According to Davis and Moore, the major function of unequal rewards is to
motivate individuals. However Tumin argues that social stratification can, and
often does, act as a barrier to the motivation and recruitment of talent. This is
readily apparent in closed systems such as caste and racial stratification. Thus
closed stratification systems operated in exactly opposite way to Davis and
Moore’s theory. Even relatively open system of stratification erect barriers. In
general, the lower an individual’s class position, the more likely he is to leave
school at the minimum leaving age and the less likely he is to aspire for a highly
rewarded position. As a result social class can act as an obstacle to the
motivation of talent.
5. David and Moore have failed to consider the possibility that those who occupy
highly rewarded positions will erect barriers to recruitment. Occupational
groups often use their power to restrict access to their positions, so creating a
high demand for their services and increasing the rewards they receive. For

example, Tumin claims that Medical Association by its control of entry into the
profession, maintains a shortage of doctors and thus ensures high rewards for
medical services.
6. Tumin also questions the view that social stratification functions to integrate
the social system. He argues that differential rewards can ‘encourage hostility,
suspicion and distrust among the various segments of a society’. From this
viewpoint, stratification is divisive rather than an integrating force.
Michael Young
Michael Young argues that a stratification system based on meritocratic principles
would have the following dysfunctions:
1. In a meritocracy, those at the bottom are clearly inferior. As a result they may
become demoralized and lose their self-respect. In all previous stratification
they have been able to divert the blame from themselves for their lowly status
by providing reasons for their failure.
2. In a meritocracy, talent and ability are efficiently syphoned out of the lower
strata. As a result these groups are in a particularly vulnerable position because
they have no able members to represent their interests.
3. In a meritocracy, those who occupy the top position are undoubtedly superior.
This may result may result in upper stratum free from self-doubt and the
restraining influence of humility. Its members may rule the society with
arrogance and haughty self-assurance. This may result in conflict between the
ruling minority and the rest of the society.
Marxist theory
From a Marxian perspective, social stratification is a mechanism whereby some exploit
others. In all stratified societies, there are two major groups, a ruling class and a
subject class. The power of ruling class derives from the ownership and control of
forces of production. The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class, As a
result there is a basic conflict of interest between the two classes. Only when the
forces of production are communally owned will class disappear, thereby bringing an
end to the exploitation and oppression of some by others.
From a Marxian perspective, systems of stratification derive from the relationship of
social groups to the forces of production. Marx used the term class to refer to main
strata in all stratification system. For Marx, a class is a social group whose members
share the same relationship to the forces of production.
(More details can be found in thinkers section.)

Weberian theory
According to Weber, social stratification result from a struggle for scarce resources in
society. The struggle is for economic resources, prestige and power. Therefore, from
Weberian perspective, social stratification has three dimensions - class, status and
power.
Class
Weber defined class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in a market
economy, and by virtue of that fact receive similar economic rewards. Thus in Weber’s
terminology, class situation is basically their market situation. Those who share a
similar class situation also share similar life chances. (Life chances refer to chances of
obtaining those things as desirable in the society, for example access to higher
education and good quality housing.)
Like Marx, Weber argues that the major class division is between those who own
forces of production and those who do. However, Weber saw important differences
in the market situation of the propertyless groups in society. In particular the various
skills and services offered by different occupations have different market values.
Weber distinguished the following class groupings in capitalist socity:
1. The propertied upper class
2. The propertyless while collar workers
3. The petty bourgeoisie
4. The manual working class
In his analysis of class Weber parted company with Marx on a number of important
issues.
1. Firstly, factors other the ownership or non-ownership of property are
significant in the formation of classes.
2. Secondly, Weber sees no evidence to support the idea of polarization of
classes. Weber argues that white collar middle class expands rather than
contracts as capitalism develops.
3. Thirdly, Weber rejects the inevitability of the proletariat revolution. Weber
admits that a common market situation may provide a basis for collective class
action but he sees this only as a possibility.
4. Fourthly, Weber rejects that political power necessarily derives from economic
power. He argues that class forms only one possible basis for power and that
the distribution of power is not necessarily linked to the distribution of class
inequalities.
Status
Whereas class refers to the unequal distribution of economic rewards, status refers to
the unequal distribution of ‘social honour’. A status group is made up of individuals

who are awarded a similar amount of social honour and therefore share the same
status situation. Unlike classes, members of social groups are almost aware of their
common status situation. They share a similar lifestyle, identify with and feel they
belong to their status group and often place restrictions on the ways in which
outsiders may interact with them. Weber argued that status groups reached their
most developed form in the caste system of traditional Hindu society.
In many societies, status and class are closely interlinked. Whoever those who share
same class situation will not necessarily belong to same status group. For example,
the newly rich are sometimes excluded from the status groups of the privileged
because their taste, manners and dress are defined as vulgar. Status groups may
create divisions within class (i.e. within a class people are stratified on the basis of
status). Status groups can also cut across class divisions (i.e. members of a status group
may belong to different classes). For example, in USA, Blacks, no matter what their
class situation, belong to the same status group.
Weber suggests that in certain situations status rather than class provides the basis
for the formation of social groups whose members perceive common interests and a
group identity.
Parties
Weber defines ‘parties’ as groups which are specifically concerned with influencing
policies and making decisions in the interests of their membership. In Weber’s words,
parties are concerned with ‘the acquisition of social power’. Parties may represent
interests determined through class situation or status situation. In most cases, they
are partly class parties and partly status parties, but sometimes they are neither.
Weber’s view of parties suggest that that the relationship between political groups
and class and status groups is far from clear cut. Just as status groups can both divide
classes and cut across class boundaries, so parties divide and cut across both classes
and status groups.
Weber’s analysis of classes, status groups and parties suggests that no single theory
can pinpoint and explain their relationship. The interplay of class, status and party in
the formation of social groups is complex and variable. Marx attempted to reduce all
forms of inequality to social class. Weber argues that the evidence provides a more
complex and diversified picture of social stratification.
1.4. Dimensions of social stratification - gender, ethnicity and race
Gender
There are two viewpoints on gender and social stratification. From one viewpoint,
women might be seen as a part of class structure without in any way forming a
distinctive group within it. In other words, individual men and women are first and
foremost members of a class rather than members of the gender groups ‘male’ and

‘female’. This suggests that a working class woman has more in common with a
working class man than with a middle class woman. From another viewpoint, gender
grouping might be seen to cut across social class, and perhaps even more important
than class. This view implies that a working class woman has more in common with a
middle class woman than with a working class man.
The development of feminism has led to attention being focused on the subordinate
position of women in societies. Several feminist approaches can be broadly
distinguished:
1. Radical feminism: Radical feminism blames the exploitation of women on men.
According to Valerie Bryson, radical feminists see women as an oppressed
group who had to struggle for their own liberation against their oppressors,
that is, against men. Pamela Abbott, Claire Wallace and Melissa Tyler argue
that radical feminism is concerned with women’s right rather than gender
equality. It does not seek to minimize the differences between men and
women, but instead believes that there is a female or feminine nature that has
been concealed and distorted throughout history, one that needs to be
liberated and revalued. This emphasis on a female perspective and female
interests is known as gynocentrism.
Radical feminists tend to believe that women have always been exploited and
that only revolutionary change can offer the possibility of liberation. Because
men are seen as the enemies of women’s liberation, many radical feminists
reject any assistance from male sex in their struggle to achieve the rights they
seek.
A particularly radical group, female supremacists argue that women are not
just equal but are actually morally superior to men. They wish to see patriarchy
replaced by matriarchy. From such perspectives, men are responsible not just
for the exploitation of women, but also for many other problems. These
include war, conflict, destruction of environment, and so on.
Radical feminism is criticized in the following ways:
i) The concept of patriarchy has been criticized for being ‘descriptive and
ahistorical’. It describes the position of women without providing any
explanation for it.
ii) It encourages women to focus only on negative experiences of
relationship with men, and to ignore, for example, happy marriages.
Valerie Bryson suggests that this may have led to a reputation of
feminism as a ‘complaining, whining and negative creed, irrelevant to
the lives of go-ahead young women’.
iii) It tends to portray ‘women as essentially good and men as essentially
bad’, which leads to an ‘inaccurate and unworkable view of men as “the
enemy”, which suggests that they cannot be trusted as fathers, friends,
sexual partners or political allies’.

2. Marxist and socialist feminism: Marxist and socialist feminists do not attribute
women’s exploitation entirely to men. They see capitalism rather than
patriarchy as being the principal source of women’s oppression. Like radical
feminists, they see women’s unpaid work as housewives and mothers as one
of the main ways in which women are exploited. Marxist and socialist feminism
has been criticized on a number of grounds:
i) It emphasizes class inequality and economic factors to the extent that
it neglects other sources of gender inequality such as culture, violence,
and sexuality.
ii) There is no necessary and inevitable congruence between the interests
of patriarchy and the interest of capital. So much of the Marxist
feminism is based on false assumptions.
iii) It tends to be relatively abstract and far removed from the everyday
experiences of women in their relationship with men.
3. Liberal feminism: According to liberal feminism, both men and women are
harmed because from existing inequalities, because the potential of females
and males alike are suppressed. For example, many women with the potential
to be successful and skilled members of the workforce do not get opportunity
to develop their talents to the full, while men are denied some of the pleasures
of having a close relationship with their children. The explanation of this
situation, according to liberal feminists, lies not so much in the structures and
institutions of society, but in its culture and the attitudes of individuals.
According to them, socialization into gender roles has the consequence of
producing rigid, inflexible expectations of men and women.
The creation of equal opportunities equal opportunities, particularly in
education and work, is the main aim of liberal feminists. They pursue this aim
through the introduction of legislation and by attempting to change attitudes.
They do not seek revolutionary changes in society. Since they believe that
existing gender inequalities benefit nobody, liberal feminists are willing to
work any members of society who support their beliefs and aims.
Although the least radical of feminist perspectives, it has probably has more
impact than any other in improving women’s lives. However it has been
criticized on the following grounds:
i) It is criticized for being based upon male assumptions and norms. It is
argued that it encourages women to be more like men and therefore
deny the values traditionally associated with women such as empathy,
nurturing and cooperation.
ii) It is accused of emphasizing public life at the expense of private life.
For example, it tends not to see personal relationships in terms of
power struggle and politics.

iii) It is rejected by Marxist and radical feminist for advocating changes
that are too limited to free women from oppression, and by Black and
post-modern feminists for assuming that all groups have shared
interests.
iv) It fails to properly explain the exploitation of women because it takes
no account of structural sources of inequality.
4. Black feminism: Black feminism has developed out of dissatisfaction with other
types of feminism. It argues that sexism, class oppression, and racism are
inextricably bound together. Forms of feminism that strive to overcome sexism
and class oppression but ignore race can discriminate against many people,
including women, through racial bias. Black women suffer from disadvantages
because they are black, because they are women and because they are
working class, but their problems are more the sum of these parts. Each
inequality reinforces and multiplies the other inequalities. According to Rose
Brewer, the distinctive feature of black feminism is that it studies the interplay
of race, class and gender in shaping the lives and restricting the life changes of
black women. Black feminism has been criticized for introducing the idea that
race differences between women are as important as important similarities
and shared interests (sex and class).
5. Postmodern feminism: Postmodern feminism tends to reject the claim that
there is a single theory that can explain the position in society. It encourages
the acceptance of many different points of view as equally valid. IN particular,
it tends to deny that there is any single, unitary essence to the concept of
‘woman’. Central to the postmodern theory is the recognition that identity is
multiple and provisional - race, sex, age, sexuality, and so on are constantly
revised and renegotiated. Postmodernism tends to celebrate differences and
to attack the idea that some characteristics are preferred to others.
Many postmodern feminists reject the idea of progress altogether. They see
the whole idea of progress as a result of a dominant male rationality. Some
sees ideas such as ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ as concepts associated with male
reason, which seeks to manipulate and control the world. They reject these
sorts of aims, which they see as the product of masculine styles of thinking.
Postmodern feminists see their principal aim as deconstructing male language
and a masculine view of the world. According to them, males see the world in
terms of pair of opposites. They take the male as normal and female as
deviation. Deconstruction involves attacking linguistic concepts typically
regarded in a positive way and reinterpreting their opposites in a positive light.
Race
The term race refers to a group of people who share certain inherited physical
characteristics, such as skin color, facial features, and stature. A key question about
race is whether it is more of a biological category or a social category. Most people

think of race in biological terms. However there are reasons for doubting the biological
basis for racial categories:
1. We often see more physical differences within a race than between races. For
example, some people we call “white” (or European), such as those with
Scandinavian backgrounds, have very light skins, while others, such as those
from some Eastern European backgrounds, have much darker skins. In fact,
some “whites” have darker skin than some “blacks,” or African Americans.
2. An individual or a group of individuals is often assigned to a race on arbitrary
or even illogical grounds. A century ago, for example, Irish, Italians, and Eastern
European Jews who left their homelands for a better life in the United States
were not regarded as white once they reached the United States but rather as
a different, inferior (if unnamed) race.
3. In terms of DNA, people with different racial backgrounds are much, much
more similar than dissimilar. Even if we acknowledge that people differ in the
physical characteristics we associate with race, modern evolutionary evidence
reminds us that we are all, really, of one human race.
The reasons for doubting the biological basis for racial categories suggest that race is
more of a social category than a biological one. Another way to say this is that race is
a social construction, a concept that has no objective reality but rather is what people
decide it is.
According to Oliver Cox, the idea of race itself is a human creation. He argues that
racism has its origin in the development of capitalism with its need to systematically
exploit labour power. For him, racism is a set of beliefs used to justify and therefore
to sustain the exploitation of one group by another.
Since 1970s a new racism has emerged that is based around cultural rather than
biological distinctions. The emphasis in no longer on superiority but merely on
difference. One example of new racism is seeing ‘immigrants’ as a cause of the
economic and political problems. Another example of new racism in Islamophobia,
which involves seeing young Muslim men as a threat to law and order.
Ethnicity
Because of the problems in the meaning of race, many social scientists prefer the term
ethnicity in speaking of people of color and others with distinctive cultural heritages.
In this context, ethnicity refers to the shared social, cultural, and historical experiences
that make subgroups of a population different from one another. Similarly, an ethnic
group is a subgroup of a population with a set of shared social, cultural, and historical
experiences; with relatively distinctive beliefs, values, and behaviors; and with some
sense of identity of belonging to the subgroup. Thus while ‘race’ is perceived as
biological, ‘ethnicity’ is cultural or social in its meaning.

1.5. Social mobility
Social mobility refers to movement from one stratum to another (or from position to
another in a social hierarchy). Stratification systems where scope of social mobility is
high are known as open systems. For example, class system. Similarly, stratification
systems where social mobility has little or no scope are known as closed systems. For
examples, caste system, estate system and slavery.
In open societies, ascribed characteristics such as class of origin, sex, race, caste, and
kinship relationships have less influence on an individual’s status. Status is seen to be
achieved on the basis of merit. Talent, ability, ambition and hardwork are steadily
replacing ascribed characteristics as the criteria for determining a person’s position in
the social structure.
Anthony Giddens suggests that if the rate of social mobility is low, class solidarity and
cohesion will be high. Most individuals will remain in their class of origin and this will
provide for the reproduction of common life experiences over generations.
From a functionalist perspective, social mobility reaffirms the faith of population on
common values of society. It gives an indication that there exist equal opportunity for
all in society. Further it adds to social cohesion since strong class consciousness would
not exist in an open society, resulting in less possibility of class conflict.
From a Marxian perspective, social mobility is tool of capitalism to justify the
oppression of one group by the other. Movement from proletariat class to capitalist
class seldom happens in capitalists societies. Thus social mobility is an instrument of
capitalist class through which reality is distorted. It provides many of the deceptions
which form the basis of the ruling class ideology and false class consciousness.
Types of mobility
1. Intragenerational mobility and intergenerational mobility
 Intragenerational mobility refers to social mobility within a single
generation. It is measured by comparing the occupational status of an
individual at two or more points in time. It indicates advancement in
one’s social position in the course of one’s lifetime.
 Intergenerational mobility refers to social mobility between
generations. It is measured by comparing the occupational status of an
individual with that of his/her father (or less frequently with mother).
It indicates a change in status of family members from one generation
to the next. It is important because the amount of this mobility in a
society tells us - to what extent inequalities are passed on from one
generation to the next. If there is very little inter-generational mobility,
inequality is clearly deeply built into the society as people’s life chances
are determined at the moment of the birth.

2. Absolute mobility and relative mobility
 Absolute mobility is the actual change in social position whereas
relative mobility is judged in comparison with to others.
 Absolute mobility refers to the total amount of mobility whereas
relative mobility refers to the comparative chances of those from
various class backgrounds reaching particular positions in the social
structure.
 It is often argued that relative mobility chances for middle class is more
than lower class.
3. Structural mobility and individual mobility
 Structural mobility refers to mobility which is brought about by changes
in stratification hierarchy itself. It is a type of forced mobility as it takes
places because of structural changes and not because of individual
attempts. One example of structural mobility is mobility of dominant
castes in India due to land reforms and green revolution.
 Individual mobility refers to mobility brought about by the actions of
individuals.
4. Horizontal and vertical mobility: Horizontal mobility refers to change in social
position within the same stratum whereas vertical mobility refers to change in
social position across strata. Generally, social mobility refers to vertical
mobility.
5. Upward mobility and downward mobility: Upward mobility refers to mobility
from a lower social position to a higher social position, whereas down mobility
refers to refers to mobility from a higher social position to a lower social
position. Upward mobility is more common than downward mobility.
6. Objective mobility and subjective mobility: Objective mobility is actual change
in social position in terms of objective criteria whereas subjective mobility is
an individual’s own perception about his social mobility. For example, people
with high aspirations, despite achieving absolute mobility may feel that didn’t
achieve any significant social mobility.
1.6. Sources and causes of mobility
According to Pitirim Sorokin, there are certain primary factors that affect mobility in
all societies, and secondary factors that are specific to particular societies at particular
times. He argued that no society can be regarded as neither completely closed,
denying any mobility, nor can it be completely open, as there are always barriers to
mobility.
Davis Glass conducted an empirical study in British society and concluded that there
is both upward and downward mobility to and from middle class and lower class, but
due to ‘elite self recruitment’, there is little downward mobility among elite.

Goldthorpe in his mobility study in Britain concluded that mobility largely happens in
immediate ranks in hierarchy and absolute mobility, from lower ranks to higher ranks,
is extremely low.
Pierre Bourdieu in his analysis of capital found that apart from economic capital, social
and cultural capital also affects mobility. Absence of social and cultural capital may
create a significant hindrance to social mobility.
Factors responsible for social mobility
1. Motivation: Without motivation and efforts on the part of the individual social
mobility is impossible.
2. Achievements and Failures: Achievement here refers to extra ordinary, usually
unexpected performance, which attracts the attention of a wider public to the
abilities of a person. It result in upward mobility of the individual. Similarly,
failures of an individual often results in downward mobility.
3. Education: In the modern industrial society in which statuses can be achieved,
education is basic requirement to occupy higher positions. It is one of the most
important instrument of social mobility.
4. Skills and Training: Persons with skills and training are accorded higher social
status and economic rewards as they are required to hold functionally
important positions in a society.
5. Migration: Migration also facilitates social mobility. People migrate from
villages to cities because urban centres have institutions of higher status as
well as opportunities for jobs. Often, after acquiring sufficient capital they go
back to their villages, and enjoy a higher social position in local hierarchy.
6. Industrialization: Industrialization results in structural mobility. Often, new
classes are formed and stratification system become more open. Indian
experience of industrialization saw the rise of highly mobile middle class.
7. Urbanization: Urbanization results in improvement in educational and
occupational opportunities through which social mobility can be achieved. It
also results in removal of traditional barriers to social mobility such as caste
consciousness.
8. Legislation: Laws can provide avenues for social mobility and make the social
system more open. For example, in India land reform laws resulted in mobility
of castes which are now known as dominant castes. Similarly, positive
discrimination policy of Government of India has opened new and faster
avenues of social mobility for erstwhile depressed classes.
9. Politicization: Politicization of structures barriers to social mobility in a
democratic setup result in legislation removing those barriers. This provides
new opportunities for social mobility.
10. Modernization: Modernization has resulted in dilution of traditional barriers
to social mobility. For example, in India modernization resulted in breakdown

of traditional caste hierarchies, which paved way for social mobility for the
lower castes via education and economic success.
11. Technology: Advancements in technology has resulted in high economic
growth in all societies as a result of which standards of living of all sections has
improved. Further, developments in technology provide increased avenues of
individual mobility to entrepreneurs. For example, information technology has
resulted in rise in innovative entrepreneurs, such as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and
Marx Zuckerberg.

2. Work and economic life
We can define work, whether paid or unpaid, as being the carrying out of tasks
requiring the expenditure of mental and physical effort, which has as its objective the
production of goods and services that cater to human needs. An occupation, or job, is
work that is done in exchange for a regular wage or salary. In all cultures, work is the
basis of the economy. The economic system consists of institutions that provide for
the production and distribution of goods and services.
According to Karl Marx, work holds the key to human happiness and fulfilment. Work
is the most important, the primary human activity. As such it can provide the means
either to fulfil man’s potential or to distort and pervert his nature and his relationship
with others. Work provide the most important and vital means for man to fulfil his
basic needs, his individuality and his humanity. By expressing his personality in the
creation of product, the worker can experience deep satisfaction.
Ann Oakley on housework

Ann Oakley argued that housework, in its current form in the West, came into
existence with the separation of the home from the workplace. With
industrialization, 'work' came to take place away from the home and family, and
the home became a place of consumption rather than a place for the production of
goods. Domestic work then became largely 'invisible', as 'real work' was increasingly
defined as that which receives a direct wage; significantly, housework was seen as
the 'natural' domain of women, while the realm of 'real work' outside the home
was reserved for men.
Women's full-time devotion to domestic tasks can also be very isolating, alienating
and lacking in intrinsic satisfaction. Because housework is not paid and brings no
direct monetary reward, women gain satisfaction and psychological rewards from
meeting standards of cleanliness and order, which feel like externally imposed
rules. Unlike male workers though, women cannot leave their 'workplace' at the
end of the day. This means that men tend to divide work and leisure quite sharply
but for women this makes little sense as they do not experience such a clear division
of time. Oakley also saw that paid work brings an income, which in turn creates an
unequal power relationship by making housewives dependent on male partners for
their own and their family's economic survival.
2.1. Social organization of work in different types of society
Slave society
Slave society was a society where there were two fundamental classes - masters and
slaves. The relations were based on the slave owner’s absolute ownership of both the

means of production and the slave and everything they produced. More often, the
prisoners of war were turned into slaves.
Feudal society
In feudal society, social relations were based on the feudal lords’ ownership of the
serfs or landless peasants. The production relations were relations of domination and
subjection, exploitation of the serfs by the feudal lords. The land was worked by the
serfs who were tied to individual plots of land, and forbidden to move or change
occupations without the permission of their lord. Often they were also required to do
chores of their lord’s mansion.
Capitalist society
In capitalist society, the social relations are based on capitalists’ ownership of capital
and workers’ (proletariat’s) ownership of labour. The worker’s sell their labour to the
capitalists in the market for wages. According to Marx, the capitalist system results in
exploitation of workers by the capitalists.
Division of labour is very high and complex in capitalist (or industrial) society. High
division of labour results in organic solidarity and increased social cohesion
(Durkheim). However, it also results in lack of enthusiasm among workers towards
work which Marx called alienation. Marx believed that a capitalist infrastructure
inevitably produces a high level of alienation.
2.2. Formal and informal organization of work
Formal organization of work is one which is deliberately planned and designed, and
duly sanctioned by the competent authority. In formal organizations the job of worker
is clearly defined, and his authority, responsibility and accountability are fixed.
Characteristics of formal organization of work
1. Legal status: Formal organizations are backed by legal sanctions. The law
enables the formal organizations to come into existence and also confers
authority on them.
2. Division of work: Division of work is the basis of formal organisation. The job
of each member is clearly defined.
3. Primacy of structure: Formal organisations have clear hierarchical structure,
with specific role attached to each position. The authority and accountability
of members are decided by their position in the hierarchy rather than personal
characteristics.
4. Permanence: Formal organizations are relatively permanent than informal
organizations.
5. Rules and regulations: Formal organizations work according to legal rules and
regulations laid down by the authority.

Characteristics of informal organization of work
1. Low levels of skill: Work in information organizations do not require high level
of skill. Hence they characterized by low levels of skill.
2. Easy entry: Getting work in informal organization is comparatively easier as
they do not require high levels of skill.
3. Low paid employment: Due to low skill requirement work in informal
organizations have low returns.
4. Immigrant labour: Due to easy entry, informal sector is largely composed of
immigrant labour who come to cities from rural areas in search of better
livelihood.
5. Lack of social security: Due to lack of legal status, informal workers lack social
security instruments such as job security, pension, and health insurance.
2.3. Labour and society
Karl Marx on labour

According to Marx, labour assumes great importance in society as only by changing
the world through their labour, have men survived and developed. Marx distinguished
between the capacity to do work, labour-power, from the physical act of working,
labour (or labour-process).
Marx’s definition of labour-power and labour:
1. Labour-power: Aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in
a human being. However, labour-power becomes a reality only by its exercise.
2. Labour: ‘A process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which
man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions
between himself and Nature’. Thus by acting on the external world and
changing it, man at the same time changes his own nature. Marx pre-supposed
labour to be exclusive to humans. He argued, actions of animals are primarily
instinctive whereas human labour results in realization of the imagination of
worker. The elementary factors of the labour (or labour-process) are (i) the
personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, (ii) the subject of that work, and (iii)
its instruments.
The main characteristic of capitalist society is that labour-power has come into the
market where capitalists buy it. According to Marx, value of each commodity is
determined by the quantity of labour expended on and materialized in it. Marx argued
that capital, as such, produces nothing. Only labour produces wealth. Yet the wages
paid to the workers for their labour are well below the value of goods they produce.
The difference between the value of wages and commodities is known as ‘surplus
value’. This surplus value is appropriated in the form of profit by the capitalists. In this
way the ruling class (capitalist) exploits and oppress the subject class.

Taylorism and Fordism
Frederick W. Taylor gave an approach to scientifically manage division of labour. It
involved the detailed study of industrial processes in order to break them down into
simple operations that could be precisely timed and organized. This approach came
to be known as Taylorism.
The principles of Taylorism were appropriated by the industrialist Henry Ford in his
automobile manufacturing plant. One of Ford's most significant innovations was the
introduction of the assembly line. Each worker on Ford's assembly line was assigned a
specialized task, such as fitting the left-side door handles as the car bodies moved
along the line. Ford was among the first to realize that mass production requires mass
markets. He reasoned that if standardized commodities such as the automobile were
to be produced on an ever-greater scale, the presence of consumers who were able
to buy those commodities must also be assured. In 1914, Ford took the
unprecedented step of unilaterally raising wages of workers to US$5 for an eight-hour
day - a very generous wage at the time and one that ensured a working-class lifestyle
that included owning such an automobile. Fordism is the name given to designate the
system of mass production tied to the cultivation of mass markets. Under Fordism,
firms made long-term commitments to workers, and wages were tightly linked to
productivity growth. The system is generally understood to have broken down in the
1970s, giving rise to greater flexibility and insecurity in working conditions.
According to Harry Braverman, Fordism and automation actually led to ‘deskilling’ of
labor force. Labor has lost control over its skills and due to specialized production,
they learn just a part of whole production activity and they become more dependent
on capitalist system.
Globalization and post-Fordism
In recent decades, flexible practices have been introduced in a number of spheres,
including product development, production techniques, management style, the
working environment, employee involvement and marketing. Group production,
problem-solving teams, multi-tasking and niche marketing are just some of the
strategies that have been adopted by companies attempting to restructure
themselves to take advantage of the opportunities presented in the global economy.
These changes represent a radical departure from the principles of Fordism, hence the
present period is understood as post-fordism. Post-fordism practices include the
decentralization of work into non-hierarchical team groups, the idea of flexible
production and mass customization, the spread of global production and the
introduction of a more open occupational structure.

Criticisms of post-fordism:
1. What we are witnessing is not a wholesale transformation, as advocates of
post-Fordism argue, but the integration of some new approaches into
traditional Fordist techniques. Thus we are experiencing a period of 'neo-
Fordism.
2. It is also an exaggeration that the age of mass production has passed in favour
of total flexibility.
The changing nature of work and working
The occupational structure across all industrialized countries has changed very
substantially since the beginning of the twentieth century. At the start of the
twentieth century the labour market was dominated by blue-collar manufacturing
jobs, but over time the balance has shifted towards white-collar positions in the
service sector. There is considerable debate over why such changes have occurred,
but there seem to be several reasons. One is the continuous introduction of labour-
saving machinery, culminating in the spread of information technology in industry in
recent years.
Feminization of labour
This 'feminization of work (or labour)’ refers to increasing participation of women in
labour force. This 'feminization of work' is not only a major historical shift in
employment patterns that is transforming the experience of paid work, but is also
transforming gender relations in every area of society, including education and the
domestic sphere.
Reasons for feminization of labour:
1. Labour shortage experienced during the First World War. During the war years,
women carried out many jobs previously regarded as the exclusive province of
men. On returning from the war, men again took over most of those jobs, but
the pre-established pattern had been broken.
2. There have been changes in the scope and nature of the tasks that have
traditionally been associated with women and the 'domestic sphere'.
i) As the birth rate has declined and the average age of childbirth has
increased, many women now take on paid work before having children
and return to work afterwards.
ii) The mechanization of many domestic tasks has also helped to cut down
the amount of time that needs to be spent to maintain the home.
3. Economic pressures on the household, including a rise in male unemployment,
have led more women to seek paid work. Many households find that two
incomes are required in order to sustain a desired lifestyle.
4. Changes in household structure, including high rates of singlehood and
childlessness as well as a growth in lone-mother households, has meant that

women outside traditional families have also been entering the labour market
- either out of choice or necessity.
5. Women have chosen to enter the labour market out of a desire for personal
fulfilment and in response to the drive for equality propelled forward by the
women's movement of the 1960s and '70s.
However due to patriarchal barriers, most women workers end up in informal sector.
Therefore, feminization of labour is mostly occurring informal sector. This phenomena
is often termed as ‘feminization of informal sector’. The reasons for this phenomena
include lower educational attainment of women due to patriarchal bias, and
traditional household responsibilities of women. Women often choose part-time
informal jobs to balance work and family obligations.
Gender and inequalities at work
1. Occupational segregation: Occupational gender segregation refers to the fact
that men and women are concentrated in different types of jobs, based on
prevailing understandings of what is appropriate 'male' and 'female' work.
Women workers have traditionally been concentrated in poorly paid, routine
occupations. Many of these jobs are highly gendered - that is, they are
commonly seen as 'women's work', Secretarial and caring jobs (such as
nursing, social work and child care) are overwhelmingly held by women and
are generally regarded as 'feminine' occupations.
2. Concentration in part-time work: Although increasing numbers of women now
work full time outside the home, a large number are concentrated in part-time
employment. Part-time jobs are seen as offering much greater flexibility and
are often favoured by women who are attempting to balance work and family
obligations. Part-time work carries certain disadvantages, such as low pay, job
insecurity and limited opportunities for advancement.
3. The wage gap: The average pay of employed women is well below that of men,
although the difference has narrowed somewhat over the past few decades.
Occupational segregation by gender is one of the main factors in the
persistence of a wage gap between men and women. Jobs traditionally done
by women are poorly paid and undervalued. Low-paid jobs dominated by
women are found in each of the five 'Cs' - cleaning, catering, caring, cashiering
and clerical work. It is the concentration of women in these roles that
particularly contributes to their poor rewards.
Changes in the domestic division of labour
One of the results of more women entering paid work is that certain traditional family
patterns are being renegotiated. The 'male breadwinner' model has become the
exception rather than the rule, and women's growing economic independence has
meant that they are better placed to move out of gendered roles at home if they
choose to do so. Both in terms of housework and financial decision-making, women's

traditional domestic roles are undergoing significant changes. There appears to be a
move towards more egalitarian relationships in many households, although women
continue to shoulder the main responsibility for most housework. The exception to
this seems to be small household repairs, which men are more likely to carry out.
Married women employed outside the home do less domestic work than others,
although they almost always bear the main responsibility for care of the home. They
do more housework in the early evenings and for longer hours at weekends than do
those who are full-time housewives. Men are contributing more to domestic work
than they have in the past. The division of labour within households varies according
to factors such as class and the amount of time the woman spends in paid work.
Couples from higher social classes tend to have a more egalitarian division of labour,
as do households in which the woman is working full time. The domestic division of
labour tend to be more egalitarian among young couples than among those of older
generations. In families with lower income, women are often responsible for the day-
to-day management of household finances, but are not necessarily in charge of
strategic decisions about budgeting and spending.
Overall, it may be concluded that over time, gender stereotypes are loosening.
The knowledge economy
Some observers have suggested that what is occurring today is a transition to a new
type of society that is no longer based primarily on industrialism. We are entering,
they claim, a phase of development beyond the industrial era altogether. The term,
knowledge economy, is often used to describe this new social order, such as the post-
industrial society, the information age and the new economy. Knowledge economy
refers to an economy in which ideas, information and forms of knowledge underpin
innovation and economic growth. A knowledge economy is one in which much of the
workforce is involved not in the physical production or distribution of material goods,
but in their design, development, technology, marketing' sale and servicing. The
knowledge economy is dominated by the constant flow of information and opinions,
and by the powerful potentials of science and technology. Knowledge-based
industries are understood broadly to include high technology, education and training,
research and development, and the financial and investment sector.
The social significance of work
1. Money: A wage or salary is the main resource many people depend on to meet
their needs.
2. Activity level: Work often provides a basis for the acquisition and exercise of
skills and capacities. Without it, the opportunity to exercise such skills and
capacities may be reduced.

3. Variety: Work provides access to contexts that contrast with domestic
surroundings. In the working environment, even when the tasks are relatively
dull, people may enjoy doing something different from home chores.
4. Temporal structure: For people in regular employment, the day is usually
organized around the rhythm of work. While this may sometimes be
oppressive, it provides a sense of direction in daily activities.
5. Social contacts: The work environment often provides friendships and
opportunities to participate in shared activities with others.
6. Personal identity: Work is usually valued for the sense of stable social identity
it offers. For men in particular, self-esteem is often bound up with the
economic contribution they make to the maintenance of the household.
Robert Blauner - Technology and alienation
Robert Blauner sees production of technology as the major factor influencing the
degree of alienation that workers experience. He defines alienation as ‘a general
syndrome made up of different objective conditions and subjective feelings and states
which emerge from certain relationships between workers and socio-technical
settings of employment’. Objective conditions refers to the technology employed.
Subjective feelings and states refer to attitudes and feelings that workers have
towards their work. Thus if workers express satisfaction with their work, they are not
alienated. Thus, Blauner rejects Marx’s view that workers in capitalist society are
automatically alienated because of their objective position in the relations of
production. Blauner claims that different forms of technology produce different
attitudes towards work and therefore varying degrees of alienation.
Blauner saw alienation reaching its height with mass production industry based on
mechanized assembly line. The high level of alienation encouraged an instrumental
approach to work. The relative weakness of the workforce led to the formation of
powerful unions to represent worker’s interests. The result was conflict between
employers and managers on the one side and workers and trade unions on the other.
Blauner saw automation as reversing this trend. He argued that automation produced
non-alienated worker, it replaced dissent between workers and management with
consensus. Blauner concludes that automation has led to a decline in the worker class
consciousness.
Impact of information technology (IT) on social organization of work
Certainly there is little question that the Internet, email, teleconferencing and e-
commerce are changing the way in which companies do business. But they are also
affecting the way in which employees work on a daily basis. Those who take an
optimistic approach, as Robert Blauner did, argue that information technology will
revolutionize the world of work by allowing new, more flexible ways of working to
emerge. These opportunities will permit us to move beyond the routine and alienating

aspects of industrial work into a more liberating informational age, giving workers
greater control over and input into the work process. Enthusiastic advocates of
technological advances are sometimes referred to as 'technological determinists',
because they believe in the power of technology to determine the nature and shape
of work itself.
Others are not convinced that information technology will bring about an entirely
positive transformation of work. When embraced as a creative, decentralizing force,
information technology can help to break down rigid hierarchies, engage more
employees in decision-making and involve workers more closely in the day-to-day
affairs of the company. On the other hand, it can just as easily be used as a way to
strengthen hierarchies and surveillance practices. The adoption of IT in the workplace
can cut down on face-to-face interactions, block channels of accountability and
transform an office into a network of self-contained and isolated modules. Such an
approach sees the impact of information technology as influenced by the uses to
which it is put and the way in which those using the technology understand its role.
The spread of information technology will certainly produce exciting and heightened
opportunities for some segments of the labour force. In the fields of media,
advertising and design, for example, IT both enhances creativity in the professional
realm and introduces flexibility into personal work styles. Yet at the other end of the
spectrum are thousands of low-paid unskilled individuals working in call centres and
data-entry companies. These positions, which are largely a product of the
telecommunications explosion in recent years, are characterized by degrees of
isolation and alienation. Thus, the information revolution also seems to have
produced a large number of routine, unskilled jobs on a par with those of the industrial
economy.
However such unskilled routine jobs can be said to have provided mobility
opportunities to the lower class. Such opportunities are particularly significant for
women in India who are empowered by working in formal sector jobs. The explosion
of IT has also enabled the shift from manufacturing jobs to preponderance of service
sector jobs.

3. Politics and society
Power refers to the degree to which individuals or group can impose their will on
others, with or without the consent of those others. Max Weber has defined power
as, ‘the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal
action even against the resistance of others who are participating the action’. Power
is therefore an aspect of social relationships. An individual or a group do not hold
power in isolation, they hold it in relation to others. More simply, power is the degree
to which an individual or a group can get its own way in a social relationship.
Sociologists often distinguish between two forms of power, authority and coercion.
Authority is that form of power which is accepted as legitimate, that is right and just,
and therefore obeyed on that basis. Coercion is that form of power which is not
regarded as legitimate by those who are subject to it. However, the distinction
between authority and coercion is not as clear cut as the above definitions suggest. It
has often been argued that both forms of power are based ultimately on physical force
and those who enforce law are able to resort to physical force whether their power is
regarded as legitimate or not.
Dowse and Hughes state that ‘politics is about power’. Politics occurs when there are
power differentials. According to this definition, any social relationship which involve
power differentials is political.
3.1. Sociological theories of power
Talcott Parsons - Variable-sum concept of power (functionalist perspective)

Talcott Parsons rejects the constant-sum concept of power and the view that power
is employed in the furtherance of the sectional interest. Parsons regards power as
something possessed by society as a whole. He considers power as a generalized
facility or resource in the society. For him, power is the capacity to mobilize the
resources of the society for the attainment of the collective goals. In this sense, the
amount of power is measured by the degree to which collective goals are realized.
Thus, the greater the efficiency of a social system for achieving the collective goals,
the more power exists in society. This view is sometimes known as ‘variable-sum’
concept of power. It is variable in the sense that it can increase or decrease.
According to Parsons, since goals are shared by all members (due to value consensus),
power will generally be used in the furtherance of collective goals. As a result, both
sides of the power relationship will benefit, and everyone will gain by the
arrangement.
Parsons regard power differentials as necessary for the effective pursuit of collective
goals. If members of society pool their efforts and resources, they are more likely to
realize their shared goals than if they operate as individuals. Cooperation on a large

scale requires organisation and direction which necessitates positions of command.
Some are therefore granted the power to direct others. This power takes the form of
authority.
Karl Marx
Karl Marx didn’t give a clear definition of power. Marx views power to be held by a
particular group at the expense of the rest of the society (constant-sum concept). The
dominant group uses power to further its own interests. These interests are in direct
conflict with the interests of those subject to its power. The use of power to exploit
others is defined as coercion. It is seen as an illegitimate use of power since it forces
subject class to submit to a situation which is against its interests. If ruling class power
is accepted as legitimate by the subject class, this is an indication of false class
consciousness.
According to Marx, the source of power in society lies in the economic infrastructure.
The relationship to the forces of the production provides the basis of dominance. That
is, the group that owns forces of production in a society also hold the power. The
relationships of dominance and subordination in the infrastructure will be largely
reproduced in the superstructure. The various institutions of society are largely
shaped by the infrastructure. Thus a capitalist infrastructure will produce a particular
kind of education system, a particular form of family structure, and so on. These
institutions will serve to reinforce the power of the ruling class.
Max Weber - Constant-sum concept of power
Max Weber has defined power as, ‘the chance of a man or a number of men to realize
their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are
participating the action’. This implies that those who hold power do so at the expense
of others. It suggests that there is a fixed amount of power and therefore if some hold
power, other do not. This view is sometimes known as ‘constant-cum’ concept of
power. Weber’s definition also implies that power holder will tend to use power to
further their own interests.
Weber’s concept of class, status and party are central to his concept of his power.
Weber notes that classes are in economic order, status groups in the social order, and
parties in the sphere of power. Unlike Marx, he claimed that power does not emerge
only from economic sources, power can also emerge from status and party. For
Weber, all three - class, status and party are sources of power. Among these different
forms of power, there are cross-cutting influences and effects. Power obtained in one
of these spheres may lead to power or a change in situation in another sphere.
Elite theory
Elite theory was first developed by Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca. It was
developed in part as a reaction to Marxism. Where Marx argues that relationship to

the forces of production divide society into dominant and subordinate groups, elite
theory claims that the personal qualities of individuals separate rulers from the ruled.
Later versions of elite theory place less emphasis on the personal qualities of the
powerful and more on the institutional framework of society. They argue that the
hierarchical organisation of social institutions allows a minority to monopolize power.
Elite theory argues that all societies are divided into two main groups - a ruling
minority and the ruled. This situation is inevitable. Should the proletarian revolution
occur, it will merely result in replacement of one ruling elite by another.
According to elite theory, major decisions which affect societies are taken by the elite.
Even in so-called democratic societies, these decisions will usually reflect the concerns
of the elite rather than the wishes of the people.
‘Classical’ elite theory - Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca
Vilfredo Pareto argue that there are two types of ruling elites - ‘lions’ and ‘foxes’. Lions
have the ability to take direct action and incisive action, and tend to rule by force. By
comparison foxes rule by cunning and guile, by diplomatic manipulation, and wheeling
and dealing. Each type of elite lacks the qualities of its counterpart, and hence both
cannot maintain power in the long run. This results in never ending ‘circulation of
elites’ - lions replace foxes, and foxes replace lions, and so on. Major changes in society
occurs when one elite replace another. However Pareto fails to provide a method of
measuring and distinguishing between supposedly superior qualities of elites. He
simply assumes that their qualities are superior to those of the masses.
Gaetano Mosca claims that elites are distinguished from the mass of the governed by
qualities that give them a certain material, intellectual or even moral superiority.
Unlike Pareto who believed that the qualities required for elite rule were the same for
all time, Mosca argued that they varied from society to society. For example, in some
societies courage and bravery in battle provide access to elite, in other skills and
capacities to acquire wealth.
Power Elite - C. Wright Mills
C. Wright Mills explain elite rule in institutional rather than psychological terms. He
rejects the view that members of the elite have superior qualities or psychological
characteristics which distinguish them from the rest of the population. Instead he
argues that the structure of institutions is such that those at the top of the institutional
hierarchy largely monopolize power. Certain institutions occupy key ‘pivotal positions’
in society and the elite comprise those who hold ‘command posts’ in those
institutions. Mills defines three key institutions - the major corporations, the military
and the government. The interests and activities of the elites are sufficiently similar
and interconnected to form a single ruling minority which Mills terms ‘the power
elite’. Thus the power elite involves the ‘coincidence of economic, military and
political power’. The cohesiveness and unity of the power elite is strengthened by the

similarity of the social background of its members, and the interchange and
overlapping of personnel between these three elites. Their members are drawn
largely from the upper strata of society. They share similar educational background
and mix socially in the same high-prestige clubs.
Iron law of oligarchy: Robert Michels considered the concentration of power in the
hand of elites to be a necessary outcome of complex organisations. His iron law of
oligarchy states that that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic
they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies such that the bulk of
members are excluded from decision making.
Pluralism or Elite pluralism

Whereas elite theory and Marxism argue that power is concentrated in the hands of
a few dominant minority, the pluralist perspective maintains that power is dispersed
among a variety of groups in society.
Pluralism begins from the observation that industrial society is increasingly
differentiated into a variety of social groups and sectional interests. This results in the
formation of organizations to represent and articulate these interests. From a pluralist
perspective, politics involves competition between a variety of interest groups, each
pressing for its own advantage. Since no one group is seen to be dominant, politics is
therefore a business of bargaining and compromise.
Most members of society are not directly involved in the political arena. Instead their
interests are represented by a relatively small number of leaders who actively
participate in the political struggle. These leaders are often referred to as elites, hence
the pluralist perspective is sometimes known as elite pluralism. From a pluralist
perspective, government is pictured as a kind of honest broker, mediating and
compromising between the demands of the various elites.
Pluralist claim that political parties in democratic societies are representative for the
following reasons:
1. The public directly influences the party policy since in order to be elected to
govern, parties must reflect the wishes and interests of the electorate in their
programmes.
2. If existing parties do not sufficiently represent sections of society, a new party
will usually emerge.
3. Parties are accountable to the electorate since they will not regain power if
they disregard the opinions and interests of the public.
4. Parties cannot simply represent a sectional interest as to be elected to power,
they require support of various interests in society.

Criticism:
1. Dahl and Rose: Not all issues reach the point of discussion in a democratic
setup. The powerful allows only ‘safe decisions’ which do not fundamentally
alter the structure of inequality. The powerful allows a variety of interest
groups to influence safe decisions as it provides the illusion of real
participation and helps to create the myth of representative government. It
disguises the real basis of power and so protects the powerful.
2. Westergaard and Resler: Power is visible only through its consequences.
Pluralist tend to concentrate on the process of decision making rather than the
results and consequences of those decisions. Western democracies have done
little to change the basic structure of inequality.
3. There is a tendency for pluralists to assume that the electorate is adequately
represented if its opinions are reflected by government. However from a
Marxian perspective, public opinion can be seen as false class consciousness.
4. The pluralists admit that power and influence of interest group varies, but tend
to ignore this in their analysis. The existence of an interest group says nothing
about its effectiveness in representing its members. It is doubtful whether the
differences in power between interest groups are consistent with the idea of
democracy.
3.2. Bureaucracy
Weber defined bureaucracy as, ‘a hierarchical organisation designed rationally to

coordinate the work of many individuals in the pursuit of large-scale administrative
and organisational goals’. A bureaucracy is concerned with the business of
administration, with controlling, managing and coordinating a complex series of tasks.
Max Weber
Weber believed that bureaucracy is becoming the defining characteristic of modern
industrial society. For him, bureaucracy is the purest type of exercise of rational-legal
authority. Weber constructed an ‘ideal type’ of bureaucracy which contains the
following elements -
1. High degree of specialisation and a clearly-defined division of labour.
2. Hierarchical structure.
3. The operations are governed by ‘a consistent system of abstract rules’ and the
application of these rules to particular cases.
4. Impersonal relationships between organisational members and the clients.
The ‘ideal official’ performs his duties in a spirit of formalistic impersonality -
without hatred or passion.
5. Appointment of officials on the basis of technical knowledge and expertise.

6. Fixed salary and the strict separation of private and official income. The official
does not own any part of the organisation for which he works nor can he use
his position for private gain.
The ideal type bureaucracy is most closely approximated in capitalist industrial society
where it has become the major form of organizational control. The development of
bureaucracy is due to its technical superiority. Compared to other forms of
organisation, tasks in bureaucracy are performed with greater precision and speed,
with less friction and lower costs.
Criticism
1. Merton criticizes Weber’s bureaucracy by observing that the bureaucratic
features, which Weber believes in enhancing rationality and efficiency, might
actually be associated with irrationality and inefficiency. For e.g. bureaucratic
authority is centralized but ability is decentralized.
2. Weber’s bureaucracy does not consider the important role of the informal
relationships that exist in any human organizations.
Marxian perspective
From a Marxian perspective, state bureaucracy will inevitably represent the interest
of ruling class. Since state bureaucracy is a repressive means of control, it should be
replaced by new, truly democratic institutions. Administrative tasks should be
simplified to the point where basic literacy and numeracy would be sufficient for their
performance. In this way, everybody would have the skills necessary to participate in
the administrative process. Lenin looked forward to a future in which all may become
bureaucrats for a time and that, therefore, nobody may be able to become a
bureaucrat. He envisaged mass participation in administration which would involve
‘control and supervision’ by all. In this way repressive state bureaucracy would be
replaced by truly democratic system.
The ideal ‘democratic’ organisation is pictured as follows:
1. The rigid hierarchy of officials will be abolished. Leaders will remain but they
will lead rather than command.
2. The specialised division of labour and fragmentation of tasks are rejected in
favour of a system where everyone should take care of everything within the
organisation. The expert will become a figure of the past since his technical
knowledge and expertise will be spread amongst the masses.
3. The fixed rules and regulations which characterize the typical bureaucracy
should be changed as the masses see fit.
Robert Michels - Iron law of oligarchy
Michels observes that democracy is inconceivable without organisation. Direct
participation by large number of people in the running of an organisation is in practice

impossible, hence some form of representative system has to be established. Once a
system of representative democracy is established, it results in appointment of full
time officials and professional politicians. The administrative tasks involved inevitably
lead to the creation of a bureaucracy which by its very nature is undemocratic. The
effective operation of organisation requires a specialised division of labour which
necessitates control and coordination from the top. The result is a ‘rigorously defined
and hierarchical bureaucracy’. As administrative matters become increasingly
incomprehensible to rank and file members as they do not possess specialist
knowledge and training, they leave matters to their leaders. Thus the very
organisation which was created to represent its members end up excluding them from
participation and decision making. This inevitably brings and end to democracy.
According to Michels, organisations inevitably produce oligarchy that is rule by a small
elite. This is the ‘iron law of oligarchy’. Michels conclude that, ‘It is the organisation
which gives birth to the domination of the elected over electors, of the mandatories
over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organisation, says
oligarchy’.
Peter Blau - Formal and informal structure
According to Peter Blau, apart from formal structure in an organisation, there exist an
informal structure which is equally important. He argues that in all organisations,
group of workers form and establish their own norms of work practice. These
‘informal groups’ and norms that they develop are an integral part of the structure of
organisations. No system of official rules and supervision can anticipate all the
problems which may arise in an organisation. Efficiency can only be maximised by the
development of informal work norms by groups of workers, and such norms can also
have the effect of reducing organisational efficiency. Blau observes that paradoxically,
unofficial practices which are explicitly prohibited by official regulations sometimes
further the achievement of organisational objectives.
Disadvantages of bureaucracy
1. Rigidity of rules and regulations: Rigid compliance with rules and regulations
discourages initiative, creativity and innovation. It may prove ineffective in
times of crises, for which no rules exist.
2. Goal displacement: Rules framed to achieve organizational objectives become
an end to themselves.
3. Impersonality: A bureaucratic organization stresses a mechanical way of doing
things. Organizational rules and regulations are given priority over an
individual’s needs and emotions.
4. Excess paperwork and red tapism: Bureaucracy involves excessive paperwork
as every decision must be put into writing. Bureaucratic procedures involve
inordinate delays and frustration in the performance of tasks.

The problem of organisations/bureaucracy
Organisations in modern society have been pictured as threating individual liberty and
undermining democracy. Yet paradoxically, they have also been seem as essential
requirements for a democratic society and as a means for the protection of individual
freedoms. Peter Blau, like many other writers, fears that organisations are moving
beyond popular control and undermining democracy. Power and resources are
increasingly concentrated in organisational settings. The life of modern man is shaped
more and more by organisations over which he has little or no control. The vast
majority of population is excluded from any participation in its decisions.
3.3. Pressure groups and political parties
Interest groups: Collection of individuals who hold a similar set of values and beliefs
based on ethnicity, religion, political philosophy, or a common goal. Based on these
beliefs, they take action to promote change and further their goals.
Pressure group: An interest group that tries to influence public policy in the interest
of a particular cause.
Political party: An organised group of people having an aim of capturing power.
Pressure groups
From a functionalist perspective, pressure groups play a constructive role in decision
making. They prepare the ground the ground for the orderly political participation.
Conflict theorist on the other hand argue that although a few pressure groups work
on behalf of poor and disadvantages, most of the pressure groups represent the
vested interests of the business leaders, the lobbies of multinational companies, rich
professionals and political leaders.
Samuel Finer characterised pressure groups as anonymous empires. Richard Lambert
view pressure groups as unofficial government, which implies that no government can
run without taking them into consideration. Anthony Giddens considers pressure
groups as carriers of democracy. But in modern democracy, they can be dysfunctional
too as by representing self-sectional interest at times other interests get marginalised.
It may also be possible that sectional interest goes contrary to national interest. For
example, the interests of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) are
incongruent with national integrity. Thus being inevitable phenomena in democracy,
pressure groups have strengthened and weakened democracy side by side.
The presence of pressure groups shows existence of pluralism, making power
dispersed and decentralized in the political system.
Pressure groups can be broadly classified into two types:
1. Protective pressure groups: Trade Unions, professional associations like
ASSOCHAM, CII etc. are examples of protective groups.

2. Promotional pressure groups: PETA, Greenpeace etc. are examples of
promotional groups as they promote some cause. These usually have wider
membership base than protective groups who protect interests of a narrow
group.
According to Almond and Powell, interest groups can be classified into four categories:
1. Institutional: These groups are formally organised which consist of
professionally employed persons. These groups include political parties,
legislatures, armies, bureaucracies and churches.
2. Associational: These are organised specialised groups formed for interest
articulation, but to pursue limited goals. These include trade unions,
organisations of businessmen and industrialists and civic groups.
3. Anomic: These groups are found in the shape of movement demonstrations
and processions, signature campaigns, street corner meetings, etc. Their
activities may either be constitutional or unconstitutional.
4. Non-Associational: These are the kinship and lineage groups and ethnic,
regional, status and class groups that articulate interests on the basis of
individuals, family and religious heads. These groups have informal structure.
These include caste groups, language groups, etc.
Characteristics of pressure groups
1. Based on certain interests: Each pressure group organises itself keeping in view
certain interests.
2. Use of modern as well as traditional means: They try to follow modem means
of exerting pressure, without fully giving up the traditional or old ways. They
adopt techniques like financing of political parties, sponsoring their close
candidates at the time of elections and keeping the bureaucracy also satisfied.
Their traditional means include exploitation of caste, creed and religious
feelings to promote their interests.
3. Resulting out of increasing pressure and demands on resource: As the
resources of developing countries are usually scarce, there are claims and
counter claims on their resources from different and competing sections of the
society. In such a situation, pressure groups arise to ascertain resources for
their interest.
4. Mediatory role: Pressure groups play the mediatory role between the people
and government. They balance the national interest and interest of individuals.
5. Alternative to inadequacies of political parties: Political parties are expected
to represent wider public interest instead of sectional interests. As a result, it
may happen that certain sections who are numerically weak may get
marginalised. Further, as most of the political parties compete for the same
social base, there is not much difference between one party programme and

the other. This has left enormous gaps in the socio-economic system of the
country. These gaps have come to be filled up by the pressure groups.
6. Represent changing consciousness: Pressure groups are a sign of changing
consciousness. The changing material conditions and consciousness create a
situation for the rise of pressure groups. For example, the Narmada Bachao
Andolan (NBA) movement has generated consciousness amongst the people
in questioning the actions of government regarding dam construction and its
repercussions.
Functions of pressure groups (or interest groups)
1. Mediatory role: Pressure groups play the mediatory role between the people
and government. They balance the national interest and interest of individuals.
2. Social cohesion: Pressure groups increase social cohesion and political stability
by providing 'safety valve' outlet for individual and collective grievances.
3. Pluralism: Pressure groups allows different sections, especially those in
minority, to put forward their interest in a channelized way.
4. Participation and political access: Pressure groups increase participation and
access to political system, thereby enhancing the quality of democracy.
5. Improvement of governance: Pressure groups provide important inputs in
policy making and keeps a check on arbitrary actions of the government.
6. Social progress: Pressure groups enable new concerns and issues to gain wide
social acceptance, there by facilitating social progress and preventing social
stagnation.
Dysfunctions of pressure groups (or interest groups)
1. Sectionalism: Pressure groups benefits only the well-organized sections of
society. The interests of the poorly organized sections are become subordinate
to that of well-organized sections.
2. Pluralistic stagnation: Progressive reforms in society are often slowed down or
even blocked by some pressure groups. Such pressure groups represents the
sections who stand to lose by such reforms.
3. Elitism: Pressure groups are often found to represent the interests only of the
elites of different sections.
4. Social disharmony and dislocation: Due to power differentials between
pressure groups certain interests get marginalized which increases social
discontent and political instability.
Political Parties
Political parties are easily one of the most visible institutions in a democracy. For most
ordinary citizens, democracy is equal to political parties.

Some of common characteristics of a political party are:
1. It is an organized form of people
2. It has an ideology and principles
3. It works under the existing constitutional structure of a nation
4. It aims to form government through legitimate means like contesting elections
5. It also plays role in mobilizing public opinion and keeping the ruling party in
check through constructive criticism.
According to Robert Dahl, political parties act as a linkage between government and
people and provide a platform for interest articulation and a conduit for pressure
groups. Political parties mobilize opinions and people. Dye and Zeigler term the
political parties and election process as a mean to divert attention of masses and
pacify them. ‘They are for creation of excitement similar to Roman circuses to divert
attention of masses from true nature of elite rule. Elections create false illusion that
power rests with majority by creating a false impression of representation’.
Challenges before political parties:
1. Lack of internal democracy: All over the world there is a tendency in political
parties towards concentration of power in one or few leaders at the top. Few
leaders exercise paramount power in the party, and those who disagree with
the leadership find it difficult to continue in the party.
2. Dynastic succession: In many parties, the top positions are always controlled
by the members of one family. This is also bad for democracy since people who
do not have adequate experience or popular support come to occupy positions
of power.
3. Growing role of money and muscle power: Since political parties are focused
only on winning elections, they tend to use shortcuts to win election. They tend
to nominate those candidates who have or can raise lots of money. In some
cases, parties support criminals who can win elections.
4. Little difference in agenda of political parties: In the recent years there has
been a decline in the ideological differences among parties in most part of the
world. In order to offer meaningful choice, parties must be significantly
different.
3.4. Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology
Definitions
 Nation: A group of people who have developed solidarity on the basis of

common identity of culture, region, language etc. The feeling of this solidarity
is known as nationalism.
 State: State is a political entity having 4 elements – territory, sovereignty,
government, and population.

 Nation state: A state governing a nation.
 Multination state: A state governing multiple nations. E.g. India
 Citizenship: It is a legal status of membership of a state.
 Citizen: A person who enjoy rights and performs duties in a state.
 Democracy: Rule by the people (citizens).
 Civil society: Civil society is the "aggregate of non-governmental organizations
and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens". Civil society is
referred to as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and
private sector.
 Ideology: Ideology is a set of particular ideas which are accepted by a particular
group without further examination. Ideology is a partial view of reality. It
allows a person to view the society in a particular manner.
Nation
Nation is defined as a group of people who have developed solidarity on the basis of
common identity of culture, region, religion etc. The feeling of this solidarity is known
as nationalism.
According to Ernest Gellner, nation, nationalism and nation-state are all modern
concepts starting form late 18th century. Andrew Pilkington also supports view of
Gellener. According to him, before industrialization, human habitations were largely
isolated. It was only when communication media spread and people identified an
‘other’ as totally distinct from them. So, the presence of the ‘other’ is a precondition
for the rise of nationalism according to him. Anthony Smith argues that nationalism is
not necessarily a modern phenomenon and many modern nations emerged from
erstwhile ethnic communities.
Liah Greenfield distinguishes between ‘Civic Nationalism’ and ‘Ethnic Nationalism’.
Civic nationalism is associated with citizenship and is mainly defined in political and
legal terms and hence can be acquired or lost. Ethnic nationalism on the other hand is
‘inherited’ nationalism and a biological necessity and hence cannot be changed.
Nationalism also has its critiques as well and Rabindranath Tagore was foremost
among them. He states, ‘I am not against this nation or that nation, but against the
idea of the nation itself’. He places society above nation as while society does not have
an ulterior purpose and is a natural regulation of relationships and the spontaneous
self-expression of man as a social being, the nation is an organisation of people with a
mechanical purpose, founded on greed, jealousy, suspicion and the desire for power.
It replaces the living bonds of society with mere mechanical organisation. Citizens of
a nation live under the delusion that they are free, but they sacrifice their freedom
everyday on the altar of this fetish called nationalism.

State
The term ‘state’ is commonly used as a synonym for nation, government, or country.
When a group of people are permanently settled on a definite territory and have
government of their own, free from any kind of external control, they constitute a
state, and it has sovereign power upon its people.
The constituent elements of a state are:
1. Population
2. Definite territory over which the population of state resides
3. Government - A political organization or agency through which the collective
will of the population is expressed.
4. Sovereignty i.e. free from any kind of external control
The main distinction between state and nation is that the basis of a nation is
psychological and cultural unity, while that of a state is physical and political unity.
However, viewing nation and state separately would give rise to a variety of
anomalies, hence a new concept of ‘nation-state’ has emerged to deal with the two
simultaneously. If the population of a state also forms a nation, or a nation organises
itself politically into a state, the result is a nation-state.
The origin of state is traced in Greek city-state called ‘polis’. It was Niccolo Machiavelli
who first used the term ‘state’ in political science. Marx believed that state is an
instrument of exploitation ‘as a committee for the management of the whole affairs
of the bourgeoisie’. Functionalists believe that state performs the functions of
integrating its inhabitants. Some early philosophers like Aristotle also gave
precedence to state over individual and said ‘State is prior to individual’.
State is differentiated from other institutions in the sense that it alone possesses
coercive authority. Weber defines state in terms of ‘monopoly over legitimate use of
violence’. So, state is fountainhead of all legitimate power over its people. Bertrand
Russell defines state as a ‘Repository of collective force of its citizens’.
Citizens cannot fulfill all their needs themselves and depend upon state for at least
two basic functions - collective welfare of community as a whole and maintenance of
law and order.
Citizenship
Citizenship is a legal status of membership of a state. Citizenship has come to imply a
unique, reciprocal, and unmediated relationship between the individual (citizen) and
the state. A citizen is a person who enjoys rights and performs duties in a state.
Early political thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli argued for a limited
citizenship to a few based on certain criteria - like education, wealth, lineage etc. Thus,
ancient Greek city-states had only limited citizenship.

T.H. Marshall defines citizenship in terms of a membership of a community which
brings 3 types of rights and duties - Civil, Political and Social - which developed in three
steps successively:
1. Civil citizenship (18th Century): Equality before law, right to freedom of speech
and expression. It emerged as a result of rise of concept of property ownership
as it required certain mutual obligations to respect each other’s property
rights.
2. Political citizenship (19th Century): Right to vote and to be voted. It when free
speech developed and everyone is treated equal by means like universal adult
franchise.
3. Social citizenship (20th Century): Rights to welfare (complete participation). It
embodies notions of rights for welfare and responsibility for collective
provision of social benefits.
Marshall defined citizenship as ‘full membership of a community’. It means that each
individual could expect certain rights of entitlement from the state and in return
would be expected to uphold certain standards or duties within the community to be
considered a ‘citizen’.
Global citizenship: Global citizenship is the idea of all persons having rights and civic
responsibilities that come with being a member of the world, rather than as a
citizen of a particular nation. The idea is that one’s identity transcends geography
or political borders and that responsibilities or rights are derived from membership
in a broader class - "humanity". This does not mean that such a person denounces
or waives their nationality or other, more local identities, but such identities are
given "second place" to their membership in a global community.
Democracy
The term democracy is derived from the Greek roots - ‘demos’ which means ‘the
people’ and ‘cracy’ which means ‘rule’ or ‘government’. Thus literally, democracy
means the rule of the people. Democracy as a concept informally existed earlier also
as illustrated by Greek city states and ancient Indian village republics. But as a modern
political concept it emerged in Europe. It means different things for different people.
Earlier scholars didn’t see it in favorable light in fact, Plato equated it with Mobocracy
and Machiavelli too rejected it in favor a strong state. Pluto decried democracy
because the people were not properly equipped with education to select the best
ruler. According to Aristotle, democracy signified the rule of the mediocre seeking
their selfish interests, not the interest of the state. Hobbes and Locke were perhaps
first scholars to popularize it as a positive and desirable concept. The concept was
further celebrated by Montesquieu who spoke about separation of power and
demarcation of responsibility on basis of formal rules.

Participatory (or direct) democracy: Decisions are made communally by those affected
by them. This was the original type of democracy practiced in ancient Greece.
Representative democracy: Decisions are made, not by the members of the
community, but by their representatives who have been elected for this purpose.
Liberal democracy: Liberal democracy is based on the following principles -
government by consent, public accountability, majority rule, recognition of minority
rights, and constitutional government.
Over the years, as size of populations increased, ‘indirect democracy’ or
‘representative democracy’ became the predominant mode of governance, and
‘direct democracy’ or ‘participative democracy’ is exercised on a few occasions like
referendums or in smaller countries like Switzerland where many important decisions
are taken by popular participation. Today, most of the democracies are also ‘liberal
democracies’.
According to T.B. Bottomore, Western governments are imperfect realization of
democracies as they permanently excludes many in any form of participation in
government activities. According to him, democracy is much more than ritualistic
regular elections. True democracy is the one in which democratic ideals become an
established feature of day to day life which would involve establishing social
democracy where people directly participate in local governments, workers
participate in management of their workplaces and so on.
Marx’s idea of democracy can be understood by his following arguments:
1. Democracy is “the essence” of the political. It is more than its legal, juridical
form.
2. Democracy does not require the participation of all members of society as
individuals in the decision-making process. In a true democracy, the state is
not external to the people and therefore does not and cannot act apart from
the will of individuals who act “as all.” In a true democracy, the “civil society is
actual political society”. There will be no separate entity as state. State and
society will be one and the same.
Conditions for successful working of democracy:
1. National sentiment: John Stuart Mill suggested that mono-national state is
essential for the success of democracy.
2. Spirit of tolerance: True national sentiment cannot be created without the
spirit of tolerance. The minority is expected to respect the majority, and the
majority is expected to accommodate minority with full dignity.
3. High moral character: High moral character of both people and leaders is
required. If people are led by their narrow self-interests, or leaders are led by

mere opportunism, democracy is bound to give way to demagogy (the practice
of leader playing with the emotions of the people instead of appealing to
reason).
4. Widespread education: Educated citizenry would be able to exercise informed
judgment in the matters of common concern. Without the fulfillment of this
condition, the electorate cannot make best use of the democratic structure.
5. Economic security and equality: Lack of economic security in the masses is
bound to undermine the people’s faith in democracy. Similarly vast economic
disparities are bound to destroy the sense of equal dignity of individuals.
Civil society
Civil society is the "aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that
manifest interests and will of citizens". Civil society is referred to as the "third sector"
of society, distinct from government and private sector.
The issues taken up by civil society organizations are diverse and wide ranging. For
example, tribal struggles for land rights, right to information, legal reforms, devolution
in urban governance, campaigns against rape and violence against women,
rehabilitation of those displaced by dams and other developmental projects,
rehabilitation of pavement dwellers, campaigns against slum demolitions and for
housing rights, primary education reform, distribution of land to Dalits, and so on.
Civil society, in opposition to the state, lays the moral foundation of society. Hegel
considered the civil society as one of the moments of ethical life, the other two being
the family and the state. Civil society is an important stage in the transition from the
unreflective consciousness of the family, to conscious ethical life. Antonio Gramsci
considered that civil society is the terrain where the state, the people and the market
interact, and where people wage war against the hegemony of the market and the
state.
The basis of the formation of civil society is secular. Caste and kinship linkages, religion
or tribal mobilization etc. are not the basis of the formation of civil society, and
according to Neera Chandhoke, they are ‘counter’ to civil society.
Democracy and Civil Society are inseparably related to each other. A healthy liberal
democracy needs the support of a vibrant civil society. The existence of civil society
also indicates the extent of democracy in a society. Civil society is an arena of
contestation and debate. Civil societies have been viewed as a force for
democratization, counterweights to the state and economic power and have emerged
as alternative vehicles of citizens’ participation at both the national and transnational
levels of governance.

Characteristic features of civil society:
1. First, civil society is the realm of organized social life that is open, voluntary,
self-generating, at least partially self-supporting, autonomous from the state
and bound by a legal order or set of shared rules.
2. Second, civil society is concerned with public ends rather than private ends. It
is an intermediary phenomenon standing between the private sphere and the
state.
3. Third, civil society is related to the state in some way, but does not seek to
control the state.
4. Fourth, civil society encompasses pluralism and diversity. It encompasses a
vast array of organizations, formal and informal, including economic, cultural,
informational and educational, interest groups, developmental, issue-oriented
and civic groups.
Functions of civil society (by Larry Diamond):
1. To limit the power of state by checking its political abuse and violations of the
law. It subject the government to public scrutiny.
2. To empower citizens by increasing the political efficacy and skill of the citizens,
and promoting an appreciation of the obligations as well as rights of citizens.
3. To inculcate and promote an arena for the development of democratic
attributes: such as tolerance, moderation, willingness to compromise, and
respect for opposing viewpoints. This enhances the quality of democracy as “it
generates opportunities for participation and influence at all levels of
governance, not the least the local government.”
4. To provide avenues for political parties and other organisations allowing them
to articulate, aggregate, and represent their interest.
5. To function as a recruiting, informational and leadership generating agency.
6. To generate public and political support for economic and political reforms.
In recent years there has been a phenomenal proliferation of the civil societies all over
the globe due to increase in the penetration of information technology. It is becoming
increasingly easier to mobilize people in a very short duration through internet and
mobile phone. Civil society has emerged as the sphere of active citizenship where
individuals take up social issues, try to influence the state or make demands on it,
pursue their collective interests or seek support for a variety of causes.
Ideology
Ideology is a set of particular ideas which are accepted by a particular group without
further examination. Ideology is a partial view of reality. It allows a person to view the
society in a particular manner.

The term ‘ideology’ was originally devised to describe the science of ideas. In this
sense, it seeks to determine how ideas are formed, how they are distorted and how
true ideas could be segregated from false ideas.
The idea that society has an 'appearance', which is not the same as social 'essence',
forms the starting point for the Marxist discussion of ideology. Ideology is what allows
a society to persist, even though the essence of that society may contain
contradictions. Some aspects of the appearance of society are the 'inverse' of its
essence. The role of ideology, therefore, is to hide the essence of society as it
contradicts the appearance, which is beneficial to the ruling class at the time. Ideology
'conceals the contradictory essential relations. Ideology is a manifestation of false
consciousness. Ideology is an instrument for protecting the interest of the dominant
class. The bourgeoisie needs ideology to maintain itself in power. Ideology functions
as the superstructure of a civilization - the conventions and culture that make up the
dominant ideas of a society.
Karl Popper argued that ideology is characteristic of totalitarianism, it has nothing to
do in an open society. An open society is willing to accept new ideas, whereas a
totalitarian society claims that is has found the absolute truth and strives to
implement it ruthlessly. Ideology is the tool which enables the state to mobilize its
manpower and other resources for a goal which is declared to embody the absolute
truth. Therefore, every ideology is totalitarian as it is blinded by bias, and hence
indifferent to plurality of viewpoints.
Some scholars Daniel Bell have even talked of death of ideology in modern societies.
Daniel Bell argued that today there is a rough consensus among intellectuals on
political issues: the acceptance of welfare state, the desirability of decentralized
power, a system of mixed economy, and political pluralism. Walt Rostow argued that
the adoption of different political ideologies played no role in determining the course
of economic development in different countries. He suggested that all societies pass
through the same stages of economic growth. However such viewpoints have been
criticized as being status quoist. They are charged of overlooking the problems of
concentration of economic power, social disorganization and cultural deprivation in
capitalist societies. Moreover, Western democratic societies are by no means epitome
of justice and morality.
3.5. Social movements and revolution
Definitions
 Dissent refers to ideas and activities which are different from those prevailing
in a society at a given point of time. When dissent is expressed openly it
assumes the form of protest.

 Agitation refers to ‘intense activity’ undertaken by an individual or group in
order to fulfill a purpose. Purpose is central to agitation, unlike ‘opposition’
which is central in protest.
 Collective action refers to action undertaken by group of people with specific
goal or objective.
 A social movement is a sustained collective action undertaken either to bring
about or resist a social change in the society.
 A revolution is a mass social movement leading to fundamental changes in the
structure of the society.
Social movement
An element of dissatisfaction with the existing system can be found in every society.
Dissatisfaction may be caused by poverty, social discrimination or lack of privilege.
People may develop a strong desire to change the situation by raising their voices
against the existing order. Social movements emerge under this situation. However, a
movement does not occur suddenly. It begins with dissent, moves towards protests
and finally takes the form of a social movement.
Any form of collective action cannot be labeled as social movement. It should be
sustained and not sporadic. Also, social movements do not function under a given set
of rules. The two features of social movements, namely, sustained action and
spontaneity operate simultaneously. These together distinguish a social movement
from other collective actions. For example, trade union movements and cooperative
movements are not social movements because they have a well-defined
organizational structure.
Types of social movements
1. Migratory movements: People migrate from one place to other due to
discontent and or due to the shared hope for a better future.
2. Reform movements: Collective attempt to change some parts of a society
without completely transforming it.
3. Revolutionary movements: They seeks to overthrow the existing system and
replace it with a totally different one.
4. Resistance or Reactionary movements: They seeks to recapture or reinstate
old values and resist certain aspects of social change.
Types of social movements by David Aberle
The typology of David Aberle is based upon two characteristics: (i) who is the
movement attempting to change and (ii) how much change is being advocated. Social
movements can be aimed at change on an individual level or change on a broader,
group or even societal level. Social movements can also advocate for minor changes
or radical changes.

1. Revolutionary movements: They aim at the complete restructuring of society.
E.g. French revolution, Russian revolution etc.
2. Reformative movements: They attempt to reform some limited aspect of
existing order. E.g. Nuclear disarmament groups, environmental movements
etc.
3. Redemptive movements: They seek radical changes in way of life of individual
members. E.g. Religious sectarian groups.
4. Alternative movements: They which aim to change only particular traits of
individual members. E.g. planned parenthood movement.
Functions of social movements

1. Mediation: Social movements help to relate the individual to the larger society.
Give a chance to people to play a role in social change.
2. Pressure: Social movements puts pressure on authority to change certain
aspects of society.
3. Clarification of collective consciousness: Social movements generate and
develop ideas which spread throughout society. As a result group
consciousness arises and grows. It also shows the existence of a collective
consciousness other than the dominant one.
Origin of social movements
M.S.A. Rao identified three factors relating to the origins of social movement:
1. Relative deprivation: People feel that they are deprived of something. The
deprivation is relative and not absolute.
2. Structural strain: When the prevailing value system and normative means do
not mean the aspirations of the people, the society faces strain. In such a
situation individuals usually violate the social norms. A new value system is
sought so as to replace the old one.

3. Revitalization: Social movements are started to revitalize the existing system
which is undergoing structural strain.
Theories on social movements
1. Deprivation theory: It argues that people who feel deprived want social change
and organise movements. It fails because everyone feels deprived at some
level but not everyone take action.
2. Marxist theory: From a Marxian perspective, social movements are a result of
eternal class conflict
3. Social strain theory (also known as Value Added theory): This theory was given
by Neil Smelser. When the prevailing value system and normative structure do
not mean the aspirations of the people, the society faces strain. This structural
strain gives rise to social movements. Social movement emerges in stages and
each stage adds value to the next emerging stage, and increases the probability
that a social movement will result in the end. Six value added elements are
needed for social movement:
i) Structural conduciveness: The structure of the society must be such
that certain protest actions become more likely. People must be aware
of the problem and must have the opportunity to act.
ii) Structural strain: There must be a structural strain in society.
iii) Generalized beliefs: The problem should be agreed and understood by
the participants.
iv) Precipitating factors: Event that becomes the proverbial spark igniting
the flame, in other words a political opportunity, is required for turning
discontent into social movement.
v) Mobilization for action: People need to have a network and
organization allowing them to take a collective action.
vi) Failure of social control: High level of social control by those in control
of power often makes it more difficult for social movements to act.
4. Resource mobilization theory: It emphasizes the importance of resources in
social movement development and success. It argues that social unrest is
always present, and people feel deprived all the time. Social movements
develop when people with grievances are able to mobilize resources
(knowledge, money, media, support of elite etc.). However, this theory fails to
explain why social movements like Black Rights movement and Arab Spring
took place despite resource crunch.
5. Revitalization theory: Social movements are also sometimes launched to
revitalize the existing system which is undergoing structural strain. Such
movements provide an alternative and are called ‘positive movements’.

Two important factors of social movements
1. Leadership: Leaders are important for movements because they help clarify
the issues and shape the movement. It is the leaders who provide guidance
and direction to a movement. They prevent it from becoming a desperate,
unruly collection of people. The leadership is expected to reflect the views of
the people. The most important aspect of leadership is that it articulates the
views of the participants. Leaders present people’s view in an organised
manner.
2. Ideology: Ideology is one of the most important elements of social movement.
People follow the leader because of what he represents, i.e., the ideas that he
places before them. Ideology helps to make sense of the environment. It
defines aspirations and interests, and directs responses to specific social goal.
Without ideology people cannot share the same feeling. It is ideology that
makes them think similarly. Ideology legitimizes the action taken by the
people. It supplies the justification for various social, political and moral values.
It is the ideology that distinguishes a social movement from mere instances.
According to M.S.A. Rao it is one of the three most crucial aspects of a social
movement, the other two being collective mobilization and orientation for
change.
Four stages of social movement
Social movements are not eternal. They have a life cycle. They are created, they grow,
they achieve success of failures, and eventually they dissolve and cease to exist.
1. Emergence: Aspirations arise
2. Coalesce: People come together
3. Bureaucratization: People organise themselves for effective action
4. Decline: Energy of the movement fades away (due to death of leader, or lack
of resources, etc.)
New social movements

According to Simon Hallsworth, the term ‘new social movements’ is generally applied
to movements such as feminism, environmentalism, the anti-racist, anti-nuclear and
civil rights movements which emerged in liberal democracies in the 1960s and 1970s.
New social movements tend to have an issue basis. They are focused on particular
issues.

Broadly new social movements can be divided into two categories:
1. Environmental movements: They are concerned with protection of natural and
social environment. For e.g. Animal rights group (such as PETA), anti-nuclear
groups, environmental groups (such as Greenpeace) etc.
2. Civil rights movements: They are committed to furthering of provision of rights
to historically marginalised sections of society such as women, ethnic minority,
and homosexual people.
Features of new social movements:
1. They have tried to extend the definition of what is considered political to
include areas such as individual, prejudice, housework and domestic violence.
2. They are usually characterised by low levels of bureaucracy.
3. They tend to be diverse and fragmented, with many organisations and informal
groups concerned with the same issues.
4. They are mainly concerned with what Hallsworth and others call ‘post-
materialist values’ as they give less importance to economic issues related to
improving people’s material living standards. They are more to do with quality
of life than with material comfort.
5. Most members of new social movements tend to be young. They also tend to
be neither from traditional working class nor upper-class, instead they are
mainly from a new middle class.
6. They do not seek power to meet their objectives. Also, unlike traditional
pressure groups (such as trade unions), they do no use threats to withdraw
resources (such as labour power or capital). Instead they use a wide range of
tactics from direct action to civil disobedience. They also use a variety of means
such as publishing books and appearing on television to win people over their
causes.
Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai have questioned the usefulness of distinction between
‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements. They argue that there is no clear difference
between old movements and new movements as many features of the new
movements were also present in the old movements.
Global social movements
Global social movements are a new type of movements that are concerned with issues
affecting the whole world rather than individual countries.
Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai have suggested five reasons for the development of global
social movements:
1. Social movements have responded to proliferation of international
organisations. Since many of international organisation take important policy
decisions, global social movements have developed in order to influence them.

2. Cheap communications and travel have made global organisation feasible for
social movements with limited resources.
3. Environmental movements have been forced to organise globally as the
consequences of environmental problems are transnational.
4. Some movements have aims which ‘have implied universal logic’. Such
movements influence people all over the world and hence become global. For
example, human rights movements.
5. Due to globalisation, values across different countries are becoming increasing
similar.
Revolution
Every revolution is a social movement but every social movement is a not a revolution.
A revolution is a mass social movement leading to fundamental changes in the
structure of the society, while movement is merely an attempt to do so. Revolution
aims at change of system rather than change in system which most movements do. It
often involves overthrowing of existing order by means of mass participation and
often accompanied by violence as well.

4. Religion and society
Religion is defined as a cultural system of commonly shared beliefs and rituals that
provides a sense of ultimate meaning and purpose by creating an idea of reality that
sacred, all-encompassing and supernatural.
4.1. Sociological theories of religion
Emile Durkheim
Durkheim in his book, The Elementary Forms of Religion, dealt with religion directly as
a non-material social fact. The book contains a description of the clan system and of
Totemism in the Arunta tribe of Australian aborigines. In Durkheim’s view if the
simplest form of religion is understood, it will be of immense use in understanding the
complexities of ‘organised’ religions.
According to Durkheim, the essence of religion is the division of the world into two
kinds of phenomena -the sacred and the profane. The sacred refers to things which
are set apart and deemed forbidden, and thus requires special treatment. The profane
refers to the everyday, the commonplace, the utilitarian, and the mundane aspects of
life. However the differentiation between sacred and profane are necessary but not
sufficient conditions for the development of religion. Three other conditions needed
- beliefs, rites and church. Beliefs are the collective representations which express the
nature of sacred things and the relations which they sustain, either with each other or
with profane things. Rites are the rules of conduct which prescribe how a man should
behave in the presence of the sacred objects. Church is an overarching moral
community (an organised group of followers). Thus, Durkheim defines religion as, “a
unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things, that is to say, things
set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral
community, called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”
Bronislaw Malinowski
Like Durkheim, Malinowski sees religion as reinforcing social norms and values, and
promoting social solidarity. However, unlike Durkheim, he does not see religion
reflecting society as a whole, nor does he see religious rituals as the worship of society
itself.
According to Malinowski, religion is concerned only with specific areas of social life.
These are situations of emotional stress which threaten social solidarity. Situations
which produces anxiety and tension include ‘crises of life’ such as birth, puberty,
marriage and death. Malinowski notes that in all societies these life crises are
surrounded with religious rituals. Rituals reduce anxiety by providing confidence and
a feeling of control. In a ritual, group unites to deal with situations of stress, and so
the unity of the group is strengthened.

He sees death as the most disruptive of these events. He argues that that the funeral
ceremony expresses the belief in immortality, which dies the fact of death, and so
comforts the bereaved. A second category of events such as floods, rains, and
earthquakes, which cannot be fully controlled or predicted by practical means, also
produces anxiety and tension. Malinowski notes such events were also surrounded
with religious rituals.
Talcott Parsons
In Parsons’ scheme of social system, religion is part of the cultural system. As such,
religious beliefs provide guidelines for human action, and standards against which
man’s conduct can be evaluated. By establishing general principles and moral beliefs,
religion helps to provide the (value) consensus is necessary for order and stability in
society.
Like Malinowski, Parson sees religion as a mechanism for adjustments to disruptive
events. In this sense, religion maintains social stability by allaying the tensions and
frustration which could disrupt social order.
Parsons argue that one of the major functions of religion is to ‘make sense’ of all
experiences, no matter how meaningless or contradictory they appear. Religious
beliefs give meaning to life, they answer man’s question about himself and the world
he lives in.
Karl Marx
According to Marx, "Religion is the opium of the people". It is an illusion which eases
the pain produced by the exploitation and oppression. It is a series of myths which
justify and legitimate the subordination of the subject class and the domination of the
ruling class. It is a distortion of reality which provides many of the deceptions which
form the basis of the ruling class ideology and false class consciousness.
Religion can dull the pain of oppression in the following ways:
1. Religion promises a paradise of eternal bliss in life after death.
2. Some religions make a virtue of the suffering produced by the oppression.
3. Religion offers hope of supernatural intervention to solve the problems on
Earth.
4. Religion often justifies the social and a person’s position within it.
Max Weber
Weber’s writing focus on the connection between religion and social change. Weber
rejects the Marxian view that religion is always shaped by economic factors. He argues
that under certain conditions reverse can occur, that is religious beliefs can be a major
influence on economic behaviour. In his most famous work, Protestant ethic and the

spirit of capitalism, Weber claimed that Protestantism was a vital influence in the rise
of the western industrial capitalism.
Functions of religion
1. Social solidarity: Religious rituals unites the group to deal with situations of
stress, and hence the unity of the group is strengthened.
2. Social control: Religious beliefs provide guidelines for human action, and
standards against which man’s conduct can be evaluated.
3. Provide solace: Religion reduces anxiety and tension in situation of emotion
stress by providing confidence and a feeling of control.
4. Social stability: Religion act as a mechanism for adjustments to disruptive
events. Religion maintains social stability by allaying the tensions and
frustration which could disrupt social order.
5. Fulfill intellectual need for knowledge: Religious beliefs give meaning to life,
they answer man’s question about himself and the world he lives in.
6. Social change: Religious beliefs can bring social change. For example, in India,
Buddhism challenged the oppressive social order and advocated a just and
egalitarian society.
Dysfunctions of religion
1. Religion in a multi-religious society becomes the cause of disorganization and
disunity.
2. It promotes practice of social evils such as sati, untouchability etc.
3. It makes people dogmatic which hinders social progress.
4. It provides a distorted view of reality creating false class consciousness which
prevents the oppressed sections from taking collective action to ameliorate
their lives.
5. It makes individuals fatalistic.
4.2. Types of religious practices: animism, monism, pluralism, sects, cults
Animism
Animism means the belief in anima or spirits. Animism encompasses the beliefs that
there is no separation between the spiritual and physical worlds, and souls or spirits
exist not only in humans but also in all other animals, plants, rocks, natural
phenomena such as thunder and rain, geographical features such as mountains and
rivers, or other entities of natural environment.
Edward Tylor believes animism to be the earliest form of religion. He argues that
religion in the form of animism originated to satisfy man’s intellectual nature, to meet
his need to make sense of death, dreams and vision. He argues that animism derives
from man’s attempts to answer two questions - (i) What is it that makes the difference

between a living body and dead one? (ii) What are those human shapes which appear
in dreams and visions?
Naturism
Naturism refers to the belief that the forces of nature have supernatural power. F.
Max Muller believes naturism to be the earliest form of religion. He argues that
naturism arose from man’s experience of nature, in particular the effect of nature
upon man’s emotions. Nature contains surprise, terror, marvels and miracles, such as
volcanoes, thunder and lightning. Awed by the power and wonders of nature early
man transformed abstract forces into personal agents. Man personified nature.
Where animism seeks origin of religion in man’s intellectual needs, naturism seeks it
in his emotional needs.
Monism
Monism is belief in single attribute, god or religious idea. It is centered on the belief
of oneness of all existences or in a single god, ideology. Among modern religions, Islam
is a monistic religion as its believers deny existence of any other power than Allah.
Similarly, Advait philosophy of Hinduism also contends that there is no distinction
between the disciple and god and they are one and there is ultimately a single being.
Sufi saints also stressed upon this concept of a single all powerful. It is generally
considered that monistic beliefs are symbol of a nascent religion. As different cults
and sects emerge from original religion, it transforms into a pluralistic religion.
Pluralism
Pluralism means existence of different viewpoints and beliefs within the same religion.
Hinduism as a religion is one such examples. In Hinduism, multiple philosophies and
ideologies like Vaishnaiv, Shaiv, Advait, Dwait etc. thrive in parallel. Similarly, in
Christianity also Calvinism, Methodists, Protestants, Catholics thrive in parallel.
Religious pluralism is the co-existence the multiple religions within a society. India is
one of the most vibrant example of religious pluralism where all major religions of the
world co-exist. It is argued that a range of competing religions has reduced the power
of religion in society. Only when a single religion has a monopoly on the truth can it
effectively reinforce social norms and values and integrate society. The plurality of
religions also reminds the individuals that their beliefs are personal preference, a
matter of choice. Religious pluralism encourages a toleration of diversity in which a
plurality of beliefs can thrive. Religious pluralism stems from two sources - (i) from the
existence of different ethnic groups with their own religious traditions (ii) from the
growth of new sects and cults.
Sects and Cult
Sects and Cults are two forms of religious organisation. Ernst Troeltsch was one of the
first writers to distinguish different types of religious organisation.

Religious organisation
1. Church: A church is a large well established religious institution with a
hierarchy of professional, paid officials.
2. Sect: A sect is a smaller religious group which broke away from the dominant
religion because of a disagreement over the interpretation of the religion. A
sect is a relatively small religious group which reject many of the norms and
values of the wider section and replace them with their own beliefs and values.
Unlike church, sects are not organised through a hierarchy of paid officials.
Weber argued that sects are more likely to arouse within the groups which are
marginalized in society. Marginalized groups feel that they are not receiving
the prestige and economic rewards that they deserve. The solution to this
problem is a sect based on what Weber terms this as ‘theodicy (religious
justification) of disprivileged’. Such sects contain an explanation for the
disprivilege of their members and promise them a ‘sense of honour’, either in
afterlife or in a future ‘new world’ on earth. For example, Dera Sachcha Sauda
in North India promises a casteless society to its members who are generally
from rural areas or from depressed castes.
3. Cult: A cult is a loose knit group organised around some common themes and
interests but lacking any sharply defined and exclusive belief system. A cult is
more individualistic than other forms of religious organisation as it lacks a fixed
doctrine. Howard Becker has defined cult as small religious groups lacking in
organisation and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs. A cult is a
voluntary organisation open to all who wish to join. It generally starts around
a charismatic personality. For example, Buddhism was a cult when Gautama
Buddha started it. Cults do not challenge the dominant beliefs.
4. Denomination: A denomination is a religious organisation that shares several
but not all of the supposed features of a church. It is often seen as kind of
watered-down church which has some similarities to a sect. A denomination is
a sect which has cooled down and became an institutionalized body rather
than an active protest group.
Roy Wallis distinguished religious organisations in terms of whether they are
respectable because they supported the norms and values of the wider society or, or
deviant because they did not. They were also distinguished according to whether they
were uniquely legitimate (they claimed a monopoly on religious truth) or pluralistically
legitimate (they accepted that other organisations could have legitimate religious
truth).
Respectable Deviant
Uniquely legitimate Church Sect
Pluralistically legitimate Denomination Cult
A typology of religious organisations

Difference between sects and cults
Sects Cults
They generally starts as a rejection of the They generally starts around a
norms and values of the wider section. charismatic personality.
They are more organised than cults. They are loosely organised.
Their beliefs and values are different Their beliefs and values are also
from the wider section and they wish to different from the wider section but
replace them with their own beliefs and they do not challenge the dominant
values. beliefs and values.
They relatively closed to membership.
Only those who are strictly committed to
They are open to all who wish to join
the beliefs and values of the sect are
regarded as members.
They exercise a stronger control over
They are more individualistic and do
individual’s life by prescribing a particular
not prescribe a particular lifestyle.
lifestyle.
They regard their own beliefs and values They are more tolerant towards other
as superior to others. beliefs and values.
They are an offshoot of an existing They are new religions or at least they
religion. are new in a particular society.
New religious movements

Roy Wallis used the term new religious movements to refer to the development of a
range of new religions and the revival of some olds ones in the 1970s Britain. He
distinguishes between them according to whether they reject, accommodate or affirm
the world.
Reasons for growth of sects, cults and new religious movements
1. Marginality: Max Weber argued that sects are more likely to arouse within the
groups which are marginalized in society.
2. Relative deprivation: More than the marginality, it is the feeling of relative
deprivation which motivate people to create a new world (sect) based on their
own beliefs and values.
3. Social change: Bryan Wilson argues that sects arise during the period of rapid
social change when traditional norms are disrupted, social relationships come
to lack consistent and coherent meaning, and the traditional universe of
meaning is undermined.

4.3. Religion and science, secularization, religious revivalism, fundamentalism
Religion and science

Albert Einstein said “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is
blind”. According to him, science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of religion. Religion defines the goal (human well-
being, spiritual development, happiness etc.) and science provides the means
(technological development, economic development, material comfort, etc.). The
boundaries of both science and religion are changing, with scientific explanations
replacing the hitherto believed religious explanations. Yet both are not against each
other. Both are complimentary. Science has empirical means to logical ends & religion
has non-empirical means to logical ends. Both science and religion are forms of human
understanding. Both are human ways of relating to reality.
Science differs from religion because it believes in neutrality and objectivity. It brings
the unknown to the level of observable reality. But religion cannot do so. What is
beyond the observable objective realm of science is in the domain of religion. Without
religion, human knowledge is confined to the boundaries of science. Without science,
religion cannot move forward. Therefore both need each other to propel the human
knowledge forward. According to Steve Bruce, science and religion can go hand in
hand and they are not anti to each other.
Durkheim maintains that scientific thought has its origins in religious thought. Both
religion and science reflect on nature, human beings and society. Both attempt to
classify things, relate them to one another and explain them. Both religious and
scientific thought contribute to the collective representations of society. According to
him, scientific thought is a more developed and refined form of religious thought.
Secularization
Bryan Wilson has defined secularization as ‘the process where religious thinking,
practice and institution lose their social significance’. Weber too anticipated a
progressive reduction in the importance of religion as a result of rationalization.
Modern societies are seen to be incompatible with the retention of a central role for
religion.
Jose Casanova identifies a particularly significant division between two uses of the
term secularization:
i) Secularization of societal structures. In this case, the main emphasis is on the
separation of religious sphere from other areas of social life.
ii) Decline of religious beliefs and practices among individuals. In this case, the
emphasis is on such issues as how many people believe in God and how many
attend churches or other places of worship.

Proofs of secularization:
1. Decline in participation in institutional religion: For example, fall in church
attendance.
2. Disengagement of institutional religion from everyday life: Bryan Wilson writes
that in secularization process the various social institutions gradually become
distinct from one another and increasingly free of religion. Education, politics
and social welfare are no longer functions of religion today.
3. Increasing religious pluralism: A range of competing religions has reduced the
power of religion in society.
4. Changing values of religious institutions: In order of to be relevant in modern
rational society, religious value have change with time. For example, religion
no longer promises a ‘messiah’ to curb the ills of society.
5. Growing individualism: Religion is no longer an act of collective worship.
Individuals today work out their own path of salvation. Thus religious
institutions no longer dictate the religious life of individuals. Thomas
Luckmann says that religion today is invisible as individuals carry it out in their
private space and not in institutions.
6. Desacrilization: With the development of scientific knowledge, the various
forces of nature are no longer considered as supernatural and sacred.
Supernatural forces are no longer deemed to control the world. Bryan Wilson
states that men act less and less in response to religious motivation - they
access the world in empirical and rational terms.
Secularism: The term secularism is used interchangeably with secularization. Peter
Berger defined secularism as the process by which sectors of society and culture are
removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols.
Religious revivalism
Religious revivalism refers to mass movements which are based upon intense religious
upheaval. Periodic religious revivals which seek to restore commitment and
attachment to religion are a regular sociological feature of religious traditions. In India,
Arya Samaj is the most important revivalist movement.
Classical evolutionary theorists had predicted that science will replace religion. During
renaissance period, religion saw a decline in its presence both in terms of attendance
to institutions as well as a matter of belief, as rationality and scientific temperament
sought to sideline it. Emergence of liberal democracy further weakened church
influence and gradually confined it to private space. However, in recent years there is
a revival of religion and religion has not declined in strict classical evolutionary sense.
Since 1940s, a tendency across the globe has been observed where its role has been
re-emphasized. It is observed at following levels:

1. Increased institutional acceptance of religion: This is observed in increasing
attendance at religious places, construction of new religious places (number
of Gurudwaras have gone many folds in past 50 years), increase in activities of
sects and cults (like ISKCON).
2. Increasing use of religion as a medium: Religion is often used a tool (medium)
to gain political power. For example, political parties often invoke religious
sentiments in order to win elections.
3. Growth of invisible or private religion: Although importance of religion is
declining in public sphere, it is still important in private sphere. Thomas
Luckmann says that religion today is invisible as individuals carry it out in their
private space and not in institutions.
4. Growth of civil religion: Robert Bellah argued that ‘civic religion’ is emerging as
a new form of religion where civic symbols and nationalism are accorded same
respect and faith as of religion.
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is essentially the adherence to religious doctrine, and an opposition
to other religions or any criticism. Fundamentalism stresses the infallibility of
scripture(s) (e.g. Bible, Quran etc.) in all matters of faith and doctrine. In its broadest
sense, fundamentalism refers to strict adherence to a set of principles with
antagonism to other viewpoints.
It is argued that fundamentalism emerges as a defense against new forces of change.
Whenever there are drastic changes in society and change of pace which disturbs
community life, very often there is a loss of identity and rootlessness among people.
In such situation people clutch any support for solace. Fundamentalism promises
certitude and restitution of an earlier better age. According to T.N. Madan,
fundamentalist movements may arise in response to perceived internal or external
threats, assertions of ethnicity or resistance to secularization. According to Steve
Bruce, fundamentalism describes ‘movements that respond to problems created by
modernization by advocating society-wide obedience to some authentic and inerrant
text or tradition and by seeking political power to impose the revitalized tradition’.
According to Karen Armstrong, fundamentalism is a ‘part of modern scene’. He says
that fundamentalist believe that they are fighting for survival as they believe that
western secular values aim to wipe out their religion completely.
Features of fundamentalism:
1. Belief in infallibility of scripture(s).
2. Discard equality of all religion.
3. Opposed to reason and rationalism.

The causes of fundamentalism (by Steve Bruce):
1. Ideological cohesion: Some religions have more potential for developing
fundamentalist groups than others. Religions which do not have a single sacred
text struggle to develop fundamentalist movements. For example, unlike Islam
or Christianity, Hinduism is a diverse religion with many Gods and no central
sacred text. This makes it more difficult to create movement claiming to
express the ‘true’ nature of the religion. What Steve Bruce calls ‘ideological
cohesion’ makes it much easier to mobilize people and claim their allegiance.
2. Common external enemy: Fundamentalist beliefs tend to be stronger where a
group believes it has a common external enemy. For e.g. Hinduism started to
develop some degree of unity in hostility to British rule.
3. Lack of centralized religious authority: A centralized authority implies that
dissenters are unlikely to claim that their version of the religion is more true.
4. Relative deprivation: Religious fundamentalism requires a supply of potential
recruits. The recruits are often the members of particular social strata that feel
especially threatened, disposed or relatively deprived by modernization. For
example, Hamas in Palestine found support among young, often unemployed
and poor Muslims, who felt anger at their treatment by Israel.
5. Relation to politics: When conservative groups do not have ample
opportunities to promote their cause through conventional democratic
politics, they are more like to turn fundamentalist. The historical relations
between a religion and politics also impacts the growth of fundamentalist
groups. For example, in Islam, the Caliph was both the religious authority and
the political authority. This historical fact has led to followers of Islam seeking
political control, not being satisfied with maintaining religious belief without
political power.

5. Systems of Kinship
Kinship refers to a principle by which individuals or groups of individuals are organized
into social groups, roles, categories and genealogy by means of kinship terminologies.
Kinship system is referred to as a structured system of status, roles and relationships
in which the kin are bound to one-another by complex interlocking ties. Kinship as a
social relationship is based upon family relatedness. The kinship relationship may be
consanguine (based on blood relation) or affinal (based on marriage). Marriage is a
link between the family of orientation and family of procreation.
5.1. Family
Definition of family
George Peter Murdock defines the family as a social group characterised by common
residence, economic co-operation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes,
at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or
more children, own or adopted, of the sexually co-habiting adults. Thus the family lives
together, pools its resources and work together, and produces offspring.
According to Talcott Parsons, families are ‘factories’ which produce human
personalities.
Is family universal?
Functionalists like G.P. Murdock concludes that family is universal. However, a
significant proportion of Black families in the islands of West Indies and Central
America does not include adult males. Hence, these families do not conform to the
Murdock’s definition of family. This may indicate that the family is not universal as
Murdock suggests, or that it is necessary to redefine the family.
Functionalist perspective of family
George Peter Murdock - the universal functions of family
G.P. Murdock argues that the family performs four basic functions in all societies. They
are - the sexual, reproductive, economic, and educational. Clearly family does not
perform these functions exclusively. However, it makes important contribution to
them all, and no other institution has yet been devised to match its efficiency in this
respect.
The family’s functions for society are inseparable from its functions for its individual
members. It serves both at one and the same time and in much the same way. For
example - the sexual function. Husband and wife have the right to sexual access to
each other. This provides sexual gratification for the spouses. At the same time the
sexual function also helps to stabilize the society by preventing the probable
disruptive effects on social order that would result of sex drive were allowed free play.

Murdock argued that the conception of family is inevitable due to its many sided
utility. However, in his enthusiasm for the family Murdock did not seriously consider
whether its functions could be performed by other social institutions. In other words,
he did not examine the alternatives of family.
Talcott Parsons - The ‘basic and irreducible’ functions of the family
Parsons argues that family has two ‘basic and irreducible functions’ - primary
socialization of children and stabilization of the adult personalities of the population
of the society.
Primary socialization refers to socialization during the early years of childhood which
takes place mainly within the family. Secondary socialization occurs during the later
years when the family is less involved and other agencies such as the peer group and
the school exert increasing influence. There are two basic processes involved in
primary socialization - the internalization of society’s culture, and the structuring of
the personality. The culture is not simply learned, it is internalized as part of the
personality structure. The child’s personality is moulded in terms of central values of
the culture to the point where they become a part of him. Thus Parsons argues that
families are ‘factories’ which produce human personalities.
Once produced, the personality must be kept stable. This is the second basic function
of the family. The emphasis here is on the marriage relationship and the emotional
security the couple provide for each other. This acts as counterweight to the stresses
and strains of everyday life which tend to make the personality unstable. Adult
personalities are also stabilized by the parents’ role in the socialization process. This
allows them to act out childish elements of their own personalities which they have
retained from childhood but which cannot be indulged in adult society. The family
therefore provides a context in which husband and wife can express their childish
whims, give and receive emotional support, recharge their batteries and so stabilize
their personalities.
Parson has been accused of idealizing the family with his picture of well-adjusted
children and sympathetic spouses caring for each other’s every need. Parsons view of
socialization has also been criticized as he sees it as a one way process with the child
being pumped full of culture and its personality moulded by powerful parents. He
tends to ignore the two way interaction process between parents and children.
Vogel and Bell - Functions and dysfunctions of the family
Vogel and Bell argue that within the family child is used as an emotional scapegoat by
the parents to release their tensions. The process of scapegoating is dysfunctional for
the child. He becomes emotionally disturbed. However, what us dysfunctional for the
child can be seen as functional for the parents, for the family unit and for society as
whole.

Critical views of the family
Edmund Leach - A runaway world?
Edmund Leach presents a pessimistic view of the family in the industrial society. By
comparison, in modern industrial society, the nuclear family is largely isolated from
kin and the wider community. In the past kinsfolk and neighbours gave the individual
continuous moral support throughout his life. Today the domestic household is
isolated. The family looks inward upon itself. There is an intensification of emotional
stress between husband and wife, and parents and children. The strain is greater than
most of us can bear. The nuclear family becomes overloaded and the result is conflict.
The parents fight and the children rebel.
Problems are not confined to the family. The tension and hostility produced within the
family find expression throughout society. Isolation incubates hate which finds
expression in conflict in the wider community.
Leach’s conclusion is diametrically opposite to the functionalist view of the family. He
states that ‘far from being the basis of the good society, the family, with its narrow
privacy and tawdry secrets is the source of all our discontents’.
R.D. Laing - The politics of family
R.D. Laing lays out the following dysfunctions of the family
1. The process of interiorization within family is psychologically damaging as it
restricts the development of the self. The individual carries the blueprint of his
family for the rest of his life. This prevents any real autonomy or freedom of
self, it prevents the development of the individual in his own right.
2. The barrier erected between the family and the world outside leads family
members, particularly children, to see the world in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’.
From this basic division stem the harmful and dangerous separation of others
into ‘people like us’ and ‘people like them’.
3. Within the family the children learn to obey their parents. Patterns of
obedience laid down in early childhood form the basis for obedience to
authority in later life. They lead to soldiers and officials blindly and
unquestioningly following orders.
Marxian perspective of the family
Friedrich Engels combined an evolutionary approach with Marxian theory arguing
that as the mode of production changes, so did the family. Engels believed that during
the early stages of human evolution forces of production were communally owned
and the family as such did not exist. The era of ‘primitive communism’ as characterised
by promiscuity. There were no rules limiting sexual relationships and society was, in
effect, the family. Engels argued that throughout man’s history, more and more
restrictions were placed on sexual relationship and the production of children. Each

successive stage placed greater restrictions on the number of mates available to the
individual. The monogamous nuclear family developed with the emergence of the
private property. This form of marriage and the family developed to solve the problem
of inheritance of private property. Property was owned by males and in order for them
to pass it on to their heirs, they must be certain of the legitimacy of those heirs.
Modern research has suggested that many of the details of Engel’s theory are
incorrect. For example, monogamous marriage and the nuclear family are often found
in hunting and gathering bands.
David Cooper argues that the family operates ‘as an ideological conditioning device in
an exploitative society’. The behaviour patterns and controls laid down within the
family produce the ‘well-conditioned, endlessly obedient citizen’ who is easily
manipulated by the ruling class.
Marxian feminist Margaret Benston sees family as a unit which produces one of the
basic commodities of capitalism, labour. It produces it cheaply from the point of view
of capitalists, since they do not have to pay for the production of children or their
upkeep. In particular the wife is not paid for producing and rearing children. To pay
women for their work, even a minimum wages, would involve a massive redistribution
of wealth. At present, the support of the family is a hidden tax on the wage earner -
his wage buys the labor power of two people. The fact that husband must pay for the
production and upkeep of future labour (children) acts as a strong discipline on his
behaviour at work. He cannot easily withdraw his labour with a wife and children to
support. These responsibilities weaken his bargaining power and commit him to wage
labour. As an economic unit, the nuclear family is a valuable stabilizing force in
capitalist society.
Fran Ansley translates Parsons’ view that the family functions to stabilize adult
personalities, into a Marxian framework. She sees the emotional support provided by
the wife as a safety-vale for the frustration produced in the husband by working in the
capitalist system.
Kathy McAfee and Myrna Wood claims that the petty dictatorship which most men
exercise over their wives and families enables them vent their anger and frustration
in a way which poses no challenge to the system.
The family and industrialisation
Talcott Parsons - The isolated nuclear family
Talcott Parsons argues that the isolated nuclear family is the typical family form in
modern industrial society. It is structurally isolated because it does not form an
integral part of a wider system of kinship relationships. Social relationships between
members of nuclear families and their kin are more a matter of choice than binding
obligations.

Parsons sees the emergence of the isolated nuclear family in terms of his theory of
social evolution according to which the evolution of society involves a process of
structural differentiation. This means that institutions evolve to specialize in fewer
functions. In this sense, no longer the do the family and kinship groups perform a wide
range of functions. Instead specialist institutions such as business, firms, schools,
hospitals, police forces and churches take over many of their functions.
Parsons argues that these is a functional relationship between the isolated nuclear
family and the economic system in industrial society. The isolated nuclear family is
shaped to meet the requirements of the economic system. The modern industrial
system demands considerable geographic mobility from its labour force for which
isolated nuclear is best suited as it is not tied down by binding kinship obligations.
Parsons argues that isolated nuclear family is the best form of family structure for a
society based on achieved status. A family unit larger than isolated nuclear family
would be in conflict of a society based on achieved status as within family status is
ascribed. It may be problematic if members of large family hold jobs of widely differing
prestige. The isolated nuclear family largely prevents these problems from arising as
there is only one main bread winner, the husband-father. His wife is mainly
responsible for raising the children. No member of the family is in a position to
threaten the ascribed authority structure.
Further, as a consequence of structural isolation of the nuclear family, the conjugal
bond is strengthened. Spouses are increasingly dependent on each other, particularly
for emotional support.
William Goode
Like Parsons, William Goode argues that industrialisation tends to undermine the
extended family and larger kinship groupings. However, Goode does not regard the
pressures of industrialisation as the only reason for the breakdown of extended family
ties as nuclear family is found in many areas where the rate of industrialisation is slight
Goode believes that the ideology of nuclear family has encouraged its growth,
particularly in non-western societies. This is partly due to prestige of western ideas
and lifestyles. He also argues that the spread of the nuclear family is due in part to
the freedom it affords its members.
Applying the concept of role bargaining, Goode concludes that extended kinship ties
are retained in industrial society if individuals feel they have more to gain than to lose
by maintaining them. The extended family patterns are most likely to occur in the
upper classes. Since the members of ruling classes and elites have an important
influence on appointment to top jobs, the retention of family makes economic sense.
In Goode’s terms it is an effective role bargain.

Characteristics of family
1. Universality: It is found in all hitherto existing societies.
2. Emotional basis for existence of members: It is built upon sentiments of love,
affection, sympathy, cooperation and friendship.
3. Limited size: It is the smallest social unit or kin group.
4. Formative influence: It shapes the personality and moulds the character of the
child.
5. Nuclear position in the social structure: It is the nucleus of all other social
organisations. The whole social structure is built of family units.
6. Responsibility of the members: Members of families have certain
responsibilities, duties, and obligations towards each other.
7. Social control: Various sanctions, rules and punishment given to family
members ensure that they adhere to accepted social norms in the outside
world.
Functions of family
1. Sexual
2. Reproductive
3. Economic
4. Socialization of children
5. Stabilization of the adult personalities
6. Status definition function: Status and honour are often attached to the family
rather than to the individual. Even in achieved status patterned societies,
family ascribes some status to the individuals in their neighbourhood.
Types and forms of family
1. On the basis of residence: Matrilocal, patrilocal, duolocal (living at separate
residences) and neolocal (married couple resides separately)
2. On the basis of authority: Matriarchal, patriarchal
3. On the basis of descent or rule of inheritance: Matrilineal, patrilineal
4. On the basis of marriage: Monogamy, polyandry, polygyny
5. On the basis of household size: Joint household, nuclear household, single
person household
6. On the basis of size: Nuclear and extended. Nuclear family includes husband,
wife and their offspring. When other members also become part of this family,
it becomes an extended family. A joint family is a particular type of extended
family.
7. On the basis of membership type: Yet another distinction is made between the
‘conjugal family’ or family by marriage on the one hand, and ‘consanguine
family’ or family by blood on the other, based on the membership type of the
family.

8. One the basis of role: The family in which one is born as a child is the ‘family of
orientation’ and the family in which one is a parent is the ‘family of
procreation’.
Factors responsible for change in family structure
1. Industrialisation: With industrialisation family tends to become isolated and
nuclear.
2. Modernisation: With women having equal rights in outer world, within family
too their position is becoming more equal to their husbands. Further advances
in contraceptive technology, the family structure in terms of number of
children can be more precisely shaped by the couple.
Changes in family in contemporary times
1. The economic functions have greatly declined.
2. The sexual regulation functions have diminished as non-marital sexual
intercourse have become quite common.
3. The reproductive functions have declined in importance. Birthrates are much
lower today than a century ago. Couples today prefer a small family with only
one or two children.
4. The socialization function has become more important. Parents today spend
much more time in children’s education than a century ago. The fierce
competition in the outer world demands that children acquire skills within the
family to have an edge in the competition. Today nearly every literate parent
knows the importance of personality development of children.
5. The affection and companionship function grew in importance.
6. Protective functions have declined. Family care of the aged which was the
norm has become less common in contemporary times.
7. The size of the family has reduced. Nuclear families have replaced joint
families. The proportion of couples who choose to remain childless has
increased and more women are delaying parenthood. Changing technology,
changing economics and changing values have cause the reduction of size of
family.
8. The division of labour within the family has become less sexual. Spouses often
share the responsibility of daily household chores.
9. Families with dual career (both spouses working) are becoming more common.
10. The power structure within the family has become less authoritarian. Children
too can expect to have a say in important family decisions which was not the
case earlier.
11. The source of power has shifted from ‘culture’ to ‘resource’. Resource is
anything that a family member may make available to the other members to
satisfy their needs or attain their goals. Murray Straus argued that the middle

class husbands have a higher 'effective power' score than the working class
husbands.
12. Divorce and remarriage have given rise to step families (or reconstituted
families) where not all members are related biologically. Further, such a
situation may result in a child being part of two families (one father’s and one
mother’s).
13. Single parent families have become more common due to increased divorce
rates.
14. Non-marital cohabitation has increased. Thus the family in contemporary
times is not limited to martial form.
5.2. Household
Family is a social unit based on kinship, household is a brick and mortar dwelling unit.
The household or ghar is a residential and domestic unit composed of one or more
persons living under the same roof and eating food cooked in the same kitchen or
hearth/chulah. Thus, emotional attachment is the core feature of family, while
commensality is core feature of household. Households and family may or may not be
the same for a given group of people.
There can be different households for the same members of family as in case of
husband and wife having occupations in different places and hence living in different
households. There may also be different families in same households, as in case of
different families living in a single house as tenants and landlords etc. There may also
be institutional households as in case of hostels and dormitories. There may also be
houseless households as in case of pavement dwellers.
5.3. Marriage
The concept
Marriage can be defined as a socially acknowledged and approved sexual union
between two adult individuals. According to Malinowski, ‘Marriage is a contract for
the production and maintenance of children’. According to the Collins Dictionary of
Sociology, ‘Marriage is a socially acknowledged and sometimes legally ratified union
between an adult male and an adult female’.
Marriage is based on two objectives - sexual gratification and procreation, and
economic co-operation. It is a legitimate and most accepted way of establishing the
most fundamental social unit called ‘family’.
Edmund Leach considered marriage to be ‘bundles of rights’ which includes both
kinship rights and domestic rights
i) Legitimating offspring
ii) Socially approved access to the spouse’s sexuality, labor and property
iii) Establishment of affinal relationships between persons and between groups

iv) Domestic rights provides the basis of formation of household, division of labor
However, contemporary trends in marriage have rendered many of the above
definitional aspects as incomplete. For example, marriage is no longer an affair
concerned with adults of opposite sexes only. It is also no longer a mechanism for
procreation only. Recognizing such limitations, Edmund Leach has commented that
‘all universal definitions of marriage are vain’. Despite such limitations, above
definitions still hold good for most of the sections of society.
Types of marriages
1. Monogamy: One man marries one woman. When monogamy is practiced with
one partner throughout one’s life, it is called straight monogamy. When
monogamy is practiced in succession with different partners, it is called serial
monogamy.
2. Polygamy: One individual marries more than one individuals at a given time. It
is of three types -
i) Polygyny: One man marries more than one woman at a given time. It is
of two types -
a) Sororal polygyny: The wives are sisters.
b) Non-sororal polygyny: The wives are not sisters.
ii) Polyandry: One woman marries more than one man at a given time. It
is of two types -
a) Fraternal polyandry: The husbands are brothers.
b) Non-fraternal polyandry: The husbands are not brothers.
iii) Group marriage: It means marriage of two or more men with two or
more women.
On the basis of social status of spouses, marriage can be of three types:
1. Hypergamy (or Anuloma): When man belongs to higher status group than
woman.
2. Hypogamy (or Pratiloma): When woman belongs to higher status group than
man. This form was considered undesirable in patriarchal societies.
3. Isogamy: When both man and woman belong to same status group.
Changes in marriage (mainly Indian scenario)
1. Polygamy has become extremely rare.
2. Serial monogamy has become more prevalent especially in the west.
3. Marriage as a prerequisite for cohabitation and reproduction is not relevant
anymore (at least in the west).
4. Hypogamy is increasingly becoming more common.
5. Inter-castes marriages have become much more common.
6. Average age during marriage is going progressively going up.

7. The say of marrying individuals in marriage has increased. The system of joint
selection incorporating individual’s preference along with parent’s preference
has replaced traditional arrange marriage system where parents had the final
authority over marriage of their children. The individuals marrying under the
arrange marriage system now have a ‘veto’ over the selection of spouse. In
urban middle class both men and women enjoys this veto whereas in rural
areas only men enjoys such a veto.
8. Increased use of technology in spouse selection. Matrimonial websites such as
Shaadi.com have become the easiest way for finding spouse. However, it can
be argued that matrimonial websites have also made it easier to practise caste
endogamy. This is evident from caste based matrimonial websites such as
baniyamatrimony.com, brahminmatrimony.com, etc.
9. The goal of marriage has shifted from merely reproduction to emotional
support and companionship.
10. Marriage which was considered as one of the ‘sanskars’ to be practiced in one’s
life is no longer valid. Marriage in contemporary times is not seen as a religious
requirement.
11. The marriage in increasingly becoming more gender equal. Wives have
significant say in household decisions.
5.4. Lineage and descent
Apart from family, an individual is a member of a number of other kingroups based

upon a system of ritual obligations. Kinship groups are formed on the basis of certain
principles, out of those principles ‘Lineage’ and ‘Descent’ are two concepts on which
such principles are based.
Lineage
Lineage is understood in two terms:
1. As a principle on the basis of which alignment or inheritance is chosen. Such
an arrangement is called a ‘line’ or ‘lineage’ (Vanshavali). Most common forms
of which are - patrilineage, matrilineage.
2. It refers to a particular type of kin group (called Kula) in which members have
a common ancestor whose identity is known. In lineage, the common ancestor
of lineage members is usually an actual remembered person (unlike in case of
clan where it is more likely to be a mythological figure). For example, in India
lineage is often considered from 3-7 generation on male side as ours is a
patrilineal society. It is sometimes known as Sarika/Sapinda group in Northern
India.
Thus, a lineage is a unilineal descent group in which membership may rest either on
matrilineal descent or patrilineal descent.

Descent
Descent (Vansha) is the principle whereby a child is socially affiliated with the group
of his or her parents. The individual belongs simultaneously to several descent groups
– those of the two parents, the four grandparents, the eight great-grandparents, and
so on. If this chain is not limited, decent principle will connect everyone on this globe
into a single descent group. However, in reality some limitations are placed and this
link is generally limited by memory or by some conventionally determined cut-off
point at, say, four or five degrees removal or a few generations.
It is a method of limiting the recognition of kingroup on the basis of some common
identity. One method of common identity is - common ancestor. In different societies
different principles might be used. There are many possible avenues for the
transmission of descent group membership, from parents to children. These are -
1. Unilineal: This type of descent is traced through single line and it is pre-defined
for an individual to which descent group will one belong. This system is
followed in most of India. It may have further two classifications -
i) Patrilineal descent (Patrilineage) -where descent is traced in the male
line from father to son,
ii) Matrilineal descent (Matrilineage) - where descent is traced in the
female line from mother to daughter.
2. Double (duolineal or bilineal): Where descent is traced in both the father’s line
as well as mother’s line for different attributes such as movable property in
one line and immovable in another.
3. Ambilineal (cognatic): Ambilineal rule affiliates an individual with kinsmen
through the father's or mother's line. Some people in societies that practice
this system affiliate with a group of relatives through their fathers and others
through their mothers. The individual can choose which side he wants to
affiliate to. The Samoans of the South Pacific are an excellent example of an
ambilineal society.
4. Parallel descent: A very rare form of descent where descent lines are sex
specific. Men transmit to their sons while women to their daughters.
5. Cross or alternative type descent: This is also very rare. Here men transmit to
their daughters and women to their sons.
Descent groups can be of various types. Most common is ‘family’ which is also the
smallest descent group. A number of families which are linked by a common ancestor
whose identity is known form a group called ‘lineage’. A number of lineages linked
together with a common ancestor whose identity is not known is called ‘clan’ or ‘gotra’
in case of India and it is exogamous. A number of clans having a common mythical
ancestor form a ‘phratory’ and it is an endogamous group. Phratory is sometimes
equated with caste in India.

Functions of descent/kin groups:
1. They perform certain rituals during occasions like birth, marriage etc.
2. Lineage and kinship are instrumental in defining the identity of a person and
distinguish between insiders and outsiders.
3. In earlier times, kinship groups could convert into war groups according to
Evan Pritchard.
4. The descent group will have a built-in authority structure, with power normally
exercised by senior males, and it may well own corporate property.
5. Rules of inheritance tend to co-ordinate with the reckoning of descent in most
societies.
6. An individual's economic rights and responsibilities will be defined by his or
her position in the descent group. Property rights are often well defined
among the kingroups.
7. In many societies unilineal descent groups are also jural units, internally
deciding their own disputes, and externally acting as a unified group in the
conduct of feud, etc. For this reason, lineage structure is often coterminous
with the political structure in societies lacking a centralized state structure.
5.5. Patriarchy and sexual division of labour
Patriarchy literally means rule by father. This concept is used to refer to a system that
values men more and gives them power over women. Sylvia Walby defined patriarchy
as ‘a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate and oppress
women’.
Gender refers to socially constructed aspects of differences between men and
women.
Perspectives on patriarchy and sexual division of labour
1. Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox: Tiger and Fox argue that human behaviour is based
on ‘biogrammar’ - a genetically based programme which predisposes mankind
to behave in certain ways. These predispositions are not same as instincts since
they can be considerably modified by culture but they remain basic influences
on human behaviour. Tiger and Fox argue that compared to women, men are
more aggressive and dominant due to their biogrammar. These traits are
necessary for the protection of band and for alliance or wars with other bands.
Thus men monopolize positions of power. By comparison women are
programmed by their biogrammar to reproduce and care for children. In short,
Tiger and Fox argue that male and female biogrammars are adapted to a sexual
division of labour in a hunting society.
2. Shulasmith Firestone: Firestone argues that sexual division of labour and the
‘sexual class system’ pre-dates and is more basic than the specialised division
of labour which differentiates all members of society and the economic class
system which divides both males and females. She claims that sexual inequality

is rooted in biological differences. Women were dependent on men for their
survival because they bore children. Dependence on men produced unequal
power relationships and ‘power psychology’ which formed the basis for all
future stratification systems. Men derived pleasure from their power over
women which led to ‘power psychology’, the desire to dominate others.
According to her, the ‘sexual class system’ can only end when women cease to
be slaves to their biology. Reliable birth control techniques have begun to free
women but true freedom will only be realised by means of artificial
reproduction. Although elegant and comprehensive, her theory fails to explain
the variation in the status of women over time and in different societies.
3. G.P. Murdock: Murdock sees biological differences between men and women
as the basis of the sexual division of labour. He argues that biological
differences such as the greater physical strength of men and the fact that
women bear children, lead to gender roles out of sheer practicality. According
to him, given the biological differences between men and women sexual
division of labour is the most efficient way of organizing society. He concludes
that the advantages inherent in a division of labour by sex presumably account
for its universality.
4. Talcott Parsons: According to Parsons the fundamental explanation of the
allocation of roles between the biological sexes lies in the fact that the bearing
and nursing of children establishes a strong presumptive primacy of relation of
the mother to the small child. Mothers have a closer and strong relationship
with the small child, and hence are best suited for the socialization of the child
which requires closeness and warmth to be effective. Further, the woman’s
role in the family as ‘expressive’ is complementary to the breadwinning
‘instrumental’ role of man. The expressive female relieves the stress and
anxiety of the weary breadwinner by providing love, consideration and
understanding.
5. John Bowlby: John Bowlby examines the role of women, and in particular as
mother, from a psychological perspective. He concludes that it is essential for
mental health that ‘the infant and young child should experience a warm,
intimate and continuous relationship with his mother’.
6. Ann Oakley: Ann Oakley argues that the division of labour is not sexual but
cultural. She points out that sexual division of labour is not universal. She
regards the supposed ‘biologically based incapacity of women to carry out
heavy and demanding work’ as a myth. Further, criticizing Parsons and Bowlby,
she points to the Israeli Kibbutz to show that systems other than the family
and the female mother role can effectively socialize the young. Criticizing
Bowlby, she notes that a large body of research shows that employment of the
mother has no detrimental effects on the child’s development. Oakley argues
that the expressive housewife-mother role is not necessary for the functioning
of the family unit. It merely exists for the convenience of men. She claims that

Parsons’ explanation of gender roles is simply validating the myth for the
‘domestic oppression of women’. Oakley argues that the following steps must
be taken to liberate women:
i) The housewife role must be abolished.
ii) The family as it stands now must be abolished.
iii) Sexual division of labour must be eradicated in all areas of social life.
7. Ernestine Friedl: Ernestine Friedl supports the cultural explanation of sexual
division of labour. She notes in some societies, activities such as weaving,
pottery making and tailoring are thought to be naturally men’s tasks and in
others, women’s. However in societies where such tasks are defined as male
roles, they generally carry higher prestige. Friedl sees this as a reflection of
male dominance which she maintains exists to some degree in all societies.
She argues that male dominance stems from their control over exchange of
valued goods beyond the family group. This activity brings prestige and power.
She claims that the distribution of scarce or irregularly available resources is a
source of power. However, to explain this particular sexual division of labour,
she returns to biological arguments. She claims that men control exchange of
valued goods because it involves risks and dangers. Men being biologically
stronger are better suited for this task.
8. Sherry Ortner: Sherry Ortner claims that the basic reason for the devaluation
of women is the universal evaluation of culture as superior to nature. She
argues that in every society a higher value is placed on culture than on nature.
Women are seen closer to nature than men due to natural biological processes
of women such a menstruation, childbirth and lactation, and therefore women
are seen as inferior to men. Women’s social role as mothers is seen as closer
to nature. On the other hand activities such politics, warfare and religion are
seen as more removed from nature and therefore as province of men. Ortner
has been criticized for failing to show conclusively that in all societies culture
is evaluated more highly than nature.
9. Sylvia Walby: For Sylvia Walby, patriarchy is ‘a system of social structures and
practices in which men dominate and oppress women’. She identified six
structure through which patriarchy operates:
i) Production relations within household: Women’s domestic labour such
as housework and child work is unpaid.
ii) Paid Work: Women in the labour market are excluded in certain type
of work, paid lower wages, and are segregated in less skilled jobs.
iii) The state: In its policies and priorities the state has a systematic bias
towards patriarchal interests. (This may not be true any more)
iv) Violence: Violence is a form of overpowering of women by men.
v) Sexuality: Different rules for sexual behaviour apply to men and women
in which more limitations are placed on women’s sexuality.

vi) Cultural institutions: A variety of institutions including media, religion
and education produce representations of women within a patriarchal
gaze. These representations influence women’s identities and
prescribe acceptable standards of bahaviour.
Finally, Walby argues that there are two distinctive forms of patriarchy that
exist in the social world: private patriarchy and public patriarchy.
i) Private Patriarchy: This form of patriarchy can be found in the
household. It sees one individual patriarch (the dominant male)
dominate and oppress the subjugated female. Walby believes this acts
as an exclusionary tactic as women are prevented from taking part in
public discourse. Through private patriarchy, women are oppressed
and controlled individually
ii) Public Patriarchy: This form of patriarchy operates in the public world.
Most often associated with the working world, public patriarchy is the
existence of oppressive factors that still function. In public life, Walby
argues, women are more collectively separated from power, wealth,
and influence than men are.
Sylvia Walby asserts that there has been a shift in patriarchies. Earlier private
patriarchy was more prevalent whereas in contemporary times public
patriarchy is more prevalent. Thus the center of patriarchy has shifted from
private sphere to public sphere as women’s presence increased in public
sphere. Walby believes that women have overcome private patriarchy to a
great extent but public patriarchy continues to operate.
Pink collar jobs
Pink collar jobs refers to those jobs in which women are over represented such as
teaching, nursing, and child care. These jobs have traditionally been considered as
“women’s work”.
Glass ceiling and Glass Floor
Glass ceiling is a metaphor used to represent an invisible barrier that keeps women
from rising above a certain level in an organisation hierarchy. The invisible barrier is a
result of social conditioning, gender bias and patriarchal traditions.
Glass floor is a metaphor used to represent an invisible barrier that keeps a section of
society from entering a particular job sector. For example, it is very unlikely that
Women and Child Development Minister in India would be a man. Similarly women
face entry barriers in Army.
Patriarchal Bargain
Patriarchal bargain refers to a tactic in which a woman chooses to accommodate and
uphold patriarchal norms, accepting gender roles that disadvantage women overall
but maximizing her own power and options.

Traditional bargain: Acceptance of overt subordination in exchange for protection and
secure social status.
Modern bargain: Sugarcoats above bargain in the ideology of separate spheres and
romantic love. For example, celebration of domesticity and maternalism.
Conclusion
Historically men have been considered as bread winners and women as housekeeper
and responsible for raising children. This arrangement used to be considered as
‘natural’. The ideology of ‘naturalness’ of division of labor has been challenged as
women started entering the labor force in large numbers in the West. The rise of
feminist movement in the west, especially since 1970s’ Women Liberation Movement,
raised questions about division of labor and almost universal subordination of women
across societies and cultures.
Patriarchal system with its unlimited restrictions on women and its comparative
freedom for men is gradually breaking down under the impact of new civilization and
culture. Earning of husband is gradually proving to be insufficient for the upbringing
of the whole family especially in case of middle class. Traditional masculine jobs are
now taken by women also. As hold of religion weakens, accompanying notions like –
‘streedharma’, ‘pativrata’ and so on are also weakening. Romantic love is new basis
for marriage. Further, as functional roles of family change, relations of members are
also affected.
Feminization of poverty
Feminization of poverty is the phenomenon that women represent
disproportionate percentages of the world's poor. Poverty is defined as deprivation
of resources, capabilities or freedoms due to which an individual are unable to
realize one’s full potential as a human being. Due to patriarchal barriers, women
are disproportionately more poor than men as they have less opportunities and
resources to realise their full potential.
Feminization of poverty is a relative concept based on a women-men comparison.
With faster economic growth and globalization, men have found increasingly more
opportunities to achieve capabilities in order to realise their potential. However,
gender inequality and patriarchal bias still persists in societies as a results of which
such opportunities come in a truncated form to women. This unequal pace of
development between men and women has resulted in a situation where women’s
representation among poor is increasing. This is a direct consequence of women’s
unequal access to economic opportunities.

5.6. Other related concepts
Incest Taboo
Incest taboo refers to prohibition of sexual relations or marriage between people
related by blood or people who are closely related in kinship terms (consanguines).
Perspectives:
1. Westermarck effect (or instinctive aversion): Also known as reverse sexual
imprinting, Westermarck effect refers to a hypothesis which states that people
become desensitized sexually towards other people with whom they are in
close contact during the first few years of their life. This could be an
explanation for why incest is considered to be taboo in most societies.
However, the prevalence of first cousin marriages in certain cultures has been
used to argue that other cultural factors could offset the influence of the
effect. Further, what is the need of incest taboo when such a thing is not going
to happen instinctually?
2. Genetic dangers: Inbreeding can increase the chances of offspring being
affected by recessive or deleterious traits. Hence, societies have incest taboo
to control check this.
3. Levi Strauss: Levi-Strauss argues that the genetic dangers of consanguineous
marriage are the outcome of the incest prohibition rather than its explanation.
He argues that the dangers would have been much smaller if prohibition has
never existed, since this would have ample opportunity for the harmful
hereditary traits to become apparent and be eliminated through selection.
o Social rule to perpetuate society: Levi Strauss argues that incest taboo
is in effect a prohibition against ‘endogamy’ and to encourage
‘exogamy’. Families must marry outside each other and not within each
other. If people cohabited within the family, society would not be
possible for social reasons. Relationships between families would not
emerge. Families would remain self-perpetuating units that faced the
danger of dying out. Taboos on marriage within family and exchange of
women allow families to become inter-related.
4. Talcott Parsons: According to Parsons, the distinctive function of the incest
taboo is regulation of erotic relationships within the family and in relation to
the establishment of new families. He links universality of incest taboo to
universality of the nuclear family. He argues that incest taboo operates to
propel the individual out of the nuclear family, and to motivate the individual
to establish a new nuclear family for sexual gratification. The incest taboo in
its negative aspect prevents the erotic factor from getting “out of hand”, which
ensures the self-liquidation of the particular family and the production of
personalities by it which are capable of fulfilling the functions of transfamilial
roles. Thus incest taboo supports the nuclear family in performing its
functions. Parsons argue that erotic gratification is an indispensable

instrument of the socialization of the human child, of making a personality and
a member of society of him. But equally, unrestricted erotic gratification
stands directly in the way, both of the maturation of the personality, and of
the operation of the society. The institutionalization of the family provides the
organized setting for the positive utilization of the erotic factor, both in
socialization and in strengthening the motivation to the assumption of familial
responsibility.
Plastic sexuality
‘Plastic sexuality’ refers to sexuality freed from the needs of reproduction and
moulded by the individual. The concept of plastic sexuality was given by Anthony
Giddens.
According to him, before the invention of contraception, sexuality was tied to
reproduction and marriage. An individual’s perception of sexuality was largely a social
prescription. However, with the advent of contraception, sexuality has been delinked
from reproduction and marriage. It freed women from the fear of repetitive
pregnancies and childbirth. Giddens argued that improved methods of contraception
and development of a sense of the self has resulted in ‘plastic sexuality’ where
individuals can give any meaning to their sexuality. There is a much greater choice
over when, how often and with whom people have sex. This means that men and
women can have ‘pure relationship’ where a social relation is entered into for its own
sake and which is continued only in so far as it is thought by both parties to deliver
enough satisfactions for each individual to stay within it.
Giddens also points out that once sex is more about self-expression and pleasure, and
has lost its tie with children, homosexuality becomes more socially accepted; it is no
long so different in form or purpose from the new normal for heterosexual sex.

6. Social change in modern society
Social change refers to any alteration over time in behavior patterns, beliefs, attitudes,
cultural values, norms and institutions of a society. Social change has two aspects -
structural and cultural.
Characteristics of social change:
 Social change is value neutral (i.e. not good or bad)

 Social change can vary in speed and scope.
6.1. Sociological theories of social change
Classical evolutionary theory of social change

Evolutionary theories are based on the assumption that societies gradually change
from simple beginnings into more complex forms. Sociological thinking during 19 th
century had the conception of change as progress or evolution. Change was viewed as
unilinear and systematic process. The evolutionary view of social change was highly
influenced by Darwin’s theory of biological evolution.
Auguste Comte: Comte used a progressive evolutionary model in his ‘Law of the Three
Stages’. According to him, societies evolves in three stages - theological, metaphysical,
and positivistic. In theological stage, thinking was guided by religious ideas and beliefs
that society was an expression of God’ will. Metaphysical stage started with
Renaissance in which society was seen in natural terms. Positivistic stage started with
new scientific discoveries. Comte believed that eventually man would be able to
measure empirically and explain conclusively all forms of social behavior in the
positivistic stage.
Herbert Spencer: Spencer stated with the assumption that reality was governed by
the cosmic law of evolution. According to him, evolution is a twin process of
differentiation and integration whereby a simple or less differentiated form
transforms itself into a complex or more differentiated form. He believed that like
individual organisms, societies are made up of interconnected and interdependent
parts. He also identified certain stages of evolution of societies - simple, compound,
doubly compound, and trebly compound.
L.T. Hobhouse: Hobhouse used the concept of social development to analyse and
explain social change. Taking advancement in human knowledge as the chief indicator
of development, Hobhouse presented an evolutionary sequence tracing development
of human society through five stages - preliterate, literacy and proto-science,
reflective thought, critical thought, and modern science.

Emile Durkheim: Durkheim gave an evolutionary typology of social change. He
believed that societies evolve from highly undifferentiated (mechanical or simple
society) to differentiated (organic or complex society).
Criticism of classical evolutionary theorists:
1. Their belief in human progress introduced value bias in their theories. They
cynically labelled simple societies as primitive.
2. They were mostly arm chair theorists and largely relied on secondary data.
3. Their theories were macro theories taking total society as the unit.
4. They viewed social change as a unilinear process.
Neo-evolutionary theory of social change
Neo-evolutionary theories refers to evolutionary theories which recently became
popular. They tries to overcome some of the limitations of classical evolutionary
theories.
Talcott Parsons
Parsons views social change as a process of social evolution from simple to more
complex forms of society. He regards changes in adaptation (economy) as a major
driving force of social evolution. As societies evolve into more complex forms, control
over the environment increases. Whilst economic changes might provide an initial
stimulus, Parsons believes that in the long run, cultural changes, that is, changes in
values, determine the broadest patterns of change. Social evolution involves a process
of differentiation. The institutions and roles which form the social system becomes
increasingly differentiated and specialized in terms of their function. Thus religious
institutions becomes separated from the state, the family and the economy become
increasingly differentiated, each specializing in fewer functions. To integrate these
differentiated and specialized institutions, the values becomes generalized.
According to Parsons, in practice no social system is in a perfect state of equilibrium
although a certain degree of equilibrium of is essential for the survival of the societies.
There may occur disturbances in any of the subsystem. Since all subsystems are inter-
related to each other, a change in one therefore produces responses in the others.
Once is disturbance has been introduced into an equilibrated system, there will be a
reaction which tends to restores the system to a state of equilibrium. This reaction
will lead to some degree of change however small, in the system as a whole. Though
social system never attain complete equilibrium, they tend towards this state
(homeostasis). Social change can therefore be seen as a ‘moving equilibrium’ with
each subsystem continuously changing and adapting.
Cyclical theories of social change
Oswald Spengler: Spengler believed that every society is born, matures, decays and
eventually dies. The Roman Empire rose to power and then gradually collapsed. The

British Empire grew strong, and then deteriorated. Spengler believed that social
change may take the form of progress or of decay, but that no society lives forever.
Vilfredo Pareto: Pareto gave the theory of ‘circulation of elites’. He argues that there
are two types of elites - lions and foxes. Lions have the ability to take direct action and
incisive action, and tend to rule by force. By comparison foxes rule by cunning and
guile, by diplomatic manipulation, and wheeling and dealing. Each type of elite lacks
the qualities of its counterpart, and hence both cannot maintain power in the long
run. This results in never ending ‘circulation of elites’ - lions replace foxes, and foxes
replace lions, and so on.
Pitirim Sorokin: Sorokin in his book ‘Social and Culture Dynamics, 1938’ has classified
societies according to their 'Cultural Mentality', which can be ideational (reality is
spiritual), sensate (reality is material), or idealistic (a synthesis of the two). Sorokin
argued that social change follows a cyclic
pattern. Societies move from one cultural Sensate Idealistic
mentality to the other and then back to the
original one. Therefore a society with sensate
cultural mentality will move to ideational
cultural mentality, and then will move back to
sensate cultural mentality. But in between the Idealistic Ideational
society has to pass through idealistic cultural
mentality.
Ideational culture emphasizes those things which can be perceived only by the mind.
It is abstract, religious, concerned with faith and ultimate truth. It is the opposite of
the sensate culture. The sensate culture stresses those things which can be perceived
directly by the senses. People seek knowledge through science and materialism. It is
practical, hedonistic, sensual, and materialistic. Idealistic culture is the synthesis of
both sensate culture and ideation culture. Both sensate culture and ideation culture
represent ‘pure’ types of culture. Hence no society ever fully conforms to either type.
According to Sorokin, societies contain both these impulses in varying degrees and the
tension between them creates long-term instability.
Criticism of Sorokin
1. Sorokin’s theory is considered to be too speculative and impossible to test
scientifically.
2. His concepts of ‘sensate’ and ‘ideational’ are purely subjective. It does not
provide an explanation as to why social change should take this form.
3. His theory fails to explain micro changes in society.
Malintegration theory of social change
Neil J. Smelser: According to Smelser, over a period of time incompatibilities may
develop between parts of social system. This may generate structural strain in the

system. Such situation of structural strain may lead to collective mobilization and
social movement may emerge to bring social change. However structural strain alone
is not enough to generate a change via social movement. Other conditions whose
presence are essential are: (i) growth and spread of generalized belief (ii) precipitation
factors (iii) mobilization of participants for action.
Robert Merton: According to Merton, over a period of time, parts of social system
become dysfunctional, and give rise to malintegration. Malintegration is manifested
in conflict. For the system to survive, the conflict has to be resolved. Therefore the
dysfunctional parts may be replaced by their functional alternatives. This would bring
a change in the social system.
Diffusionist theory of social change
Diffusionist theory locates the source of change outside the society. The process of
change in a society begins when cultural contact takes place with another society. If
there is a direct cultural contact leading to acculturation process, the recipient culture
may be transformed to a great extent. The change in culture through diffusion is
studied at two levels - little tradition and great tradition.
Example: The western culture diffused into Indian culture due to cultural contact with
British. This resulted in social change in Indian society.
Conflict (Marxian) theory of social change
According to Marx, social change is the rooted in the unity and conflict of the
opposites. The basis for any change is material reality. The conflict between the
opposites results in an endless process of dialectics. This process of dialectics results
in social change. When material conditions mature, gradual quantitative changes lead
to qualitative changes. This idea of social change is known as dialectic materialism.
According to Marx, forces of production are inherently dynamic in nature (constantly
changing) as man is constantly struggling for supremacy over nature, and thus
constantly tries and improve upon the forces of production. A change in forces of
production necessitates a change in relations of production sooner or later. However
there is always a class which is benefitted by the old relations of production and thus
attached to it. This hinders the development of new forces of production. A point
comes when no further development in forces of production is possible without
changing the relations of production. When people become conscious of this conflict,
they wish to bring an end to it. Thus takes place a revolution which overhauls the
relations of production. The revolution is led by the class that wants to bring change
in forces of production or is at a disadvantage in the old relations of production. When
both the forces of production and relation of production have changed, the whole
economic infrastructure is transformed leading to corresponding change in the
superstructure too. It is to be noted that changes in forces of production are gradual
and evolutionary while those in the relations of production and superstructure are

intermittent and revolutionary because they come to be valued for their own sake
(benefits the ruling class) and tend to resist change.
Criticism:
 Weber rejects the inevitability of revolution and regards it as one of the

possibilities, in fact a very rare possibility.
 Material reality is not the only cause of social changes. Ideas also initiate social
change.
Functionalist theory of social change
Talcott Parsons: Already done in evolutionary theories.
6.2. Development and dependency
Development as a social concept involves progressive change from one inferior state
to a superior state of well-being or simply change in the desired direction. It is also
defined as ‘development is about removing the obstacles to the things that a person
can do in life, such as illiteracy, ill health, lack of access to resources, or lack of civil
and political freedoms’. True development is the one which not only means growth,
but also self-realization and independence of thoughts and actions leading to full
realization of one’s potential.
Classical sociologists took an evolutionary view of development which is often
simplified as a shift from a traditional or simple society to modern or industrialized
society. Contemporary notions of development stress on justice, rights, equality,
equity, human development, sustainability, individual liberty and realization of
potential.
Developed countries over the years developed their model of development which was
primarily focused on material well-being. The western notion of development was
imposed on newly liberated nations after Second World War when numerous of them
became independent. However, soon it was realized that their conditions were not
improving and instead they were facing a net outflow of resources, stagnant levels of
poverty and worse of all a dependency on the western countries. This led to rise of
‘dependency theories’ in 1950s in Latin American countries which were under
communist influence. The dependency theories saw development process as
essentially one creating dependency of developing countries on developed countries.
Dependency theory
Dependency theory argues that poverty of low income countries stems from their
exploitation by the wealthy countries and multinational corporations that are based
in wealthy countries. These theories are offshoot of Marxist theory. This view suggests
that global capitalism has locked their countries into a downward spiral of exploitation
and poverty. According to it, even though colonialism has officially ended, it continues

to be practiced in disguised manner, and developed countries prevent development
of underdeveloped countries for their own vested interests. The transnational
corporation reap enormous profits from their branches in low income countries. It
argues that MNCs exploit cheap labour and raw materials to minimize the production
cost. The indigenous companies are unable to compete with these wealthy companies
and are wiped out. The low wages keep the population poor and profits are
appropriated by the MNCs.
Andre Gunder Frank argues that the contemporary underdevelopment of Latin
American countries and Afro-Asian countries is a result of artificial dependency that
West has historically created and this underdevelopment is fundamentally different
from undevelopment. According to him, powerful rich countries impose unequal
terms in the name of free trade and developmental help. Arghiri Emmanuel refers to
low income countries as not under-developed, but as ‘misdeveloped’. Dependency
theorists also highlight the stalling of Doha WTO round as a symbol of Western vested
interests in promoting an unequal global trade framework.
The dependency theorists regard the exercise of (political and military) power as
central to enforcing unequal economic relationship.
Criticism of dependency theory
1. Gunnar Myrdal contends that developmental deficit cannot be completely
attributed to dependency, but its major causes are value deficit and
institutional inadequacies in third world countries.
2. Amartya Sen also rejects dependency theory and argues that third world
countries have benefited from technology transfers and revolutionary changes
in social sectors like health, education and communication. They have
achieved results in a matter of a decade, what developed countries achieved
in centuries.
3. They dependency theory school does not provide any substantive empirical
evidences to support its arguments.
4. It is too simplistic and suffers from ideological biases.
World system theory
World systems theory argues that the world-system (and not individual/collective
nation states or the distinct First World, Second World and Third World countries etc.)
should be the basic unit of social analysis.
The most well-known version of the world-system approach has been developed by
Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein locates the origin of the ‘modern world-system’ in
16th-century Western Europe when Feudalism was replaced by Capitalism. The
process of exploitation during colonial period produced a world system made up of
core, semi-periphery and periphery countries.

Core countries: Core countries are the most advanced industrial counties. They form
the exploitative capitalist class on a global level. They include US, Japan and countries
of Western Europe (UK, France, Germany etc.).
Peripheral countries: Peripheral countries are poor and dependent countries. They are
low income agricultural counties. They are manipulated by the core countries for their
own economic advantage. Example: African countries, some Latina American
countries and some Asian countries.
Semi-peripheral countries: Semi-peripheral countries occupy an intermediate
position. These are semi-industrialized middle income countries that extract profits
from peripheral countries and yield profits to the core countries. Example: India,
Brazil, Chile, ASEAN countries etc.
Development and dependency
Development can be truly meaningful if it can bring happiness to all the participants
and their collective rise. Development which is unequal will always lead to
dependency. True development creates synergy and not dependence. In India too,
this dependency is created by unequal development and unequal distribution of
benefits. Dependency can be curtailed only through empowerment of those who are
at the receiving end of the development process. New approaches like sustainable
development, rights based approach, and bottoms up development are emerging as
viable alternatives to the traditional approaches to development which creates
dependency.
6.3. Agents of social change
Agents of social change can be various. They can be from within the society i.e.
endogenous/orthogenetic or can be from external sources i.e.
exogenous/heterogenetic.
Various factors (agents) of social change are:
1. Cultural factors: A large part of change in society is caused by change in culture.
Culture is a system that constantly loses and gains components. Invention,
discovery and diffusion are considered to be the main sources of cultural
change. Diffusion is a process of the spreading of culture from one society to
other societies. Change in position of women in many societies is an example
of cultural change.
2. Ideas and values: New ideas and modification of old ideas in a new context
bring wide-scale changes in society. For example, Max Weber established that
rationalization of religious ideas brought about phenomenal change in
Protestant world.
3. Political factors: Ruling class defines the political atmosphere of a society. For
example, in military dictatorship, resources are channelized in a different

manner as compared to a democracy. Often a redistribution of power happens
due to some big political events like revolutions, and coups as in case of French
Revolution. Gradual changes also take as a result of far reaching political
initiatives like universal adult franchise.
4. Environmental and physical factors: Early civilizations were mostly situated in
flood plains. Village life is drastically changed by Tsunami. Now a days global
warming also looms large which may bring multiplicities of change.
5. Economic factors: According to Karl Marx, true social change in form of
communist revolution can come only by change in economic infrastructure.
Discovery of oil in Middle East, rise of industrialization and capitalism are some
of the examples. Globalization of economies is the most recent example.
6. Legal factors: Throughout history, laws have been used to bring about change
in society. In fact, attempted social change through law is an important feature
of modern world. For example, Constitution of India abolished the inhuman
practice of untouchability, and gave formal rights to those who suffered from
such disabilities. It ushered a new era of equality in caste-divided India society.
7. Demographic factors: Demographic change is caused by a change in birth rate
and death rate, and migration of populations. Change occurs from the
demographic transition in society. For example, India is expected to experience
demographic dividend starting 2025 which may result in high economic
growth, reduction of poverty and increase in standard of living of all.
8. Religious factors: Religion can act as an agent of change as well as resistance
to change. Weber has shown how protestant ethics brought industrialization
to Europe.
9. Technological factors: Industrial Revolution is an example which led to massive
social upheaval (sudden change). Also, in Ogburn’s concept of ‘culture lag’,
technology has been an important factor in social change.
10. Conflict and change: Social change is also caused by tension and conflict.
Structural strain, deprivation, and cultural revitalization have been the major
causes of conflict. Social division based on class, caste, gender, ethnicity,
estate, etc. have also been important sources of conflict and change in society.
11. Social movements and change: Social movements are organized efforts of
groups of people to bring about deliberate change in the values, norms,
institutions, culture relationships and traditions of the society. They also
generate new identities and a new perspective.
12. Education and change: Education brings social change by way of affecting
existing value systems and beliefs, creating capacity among the individuals to
absorb new ideas, and opening up of avenues for social mobility.

6.4. Education and social change
Education brings social change by way of affecting existing value systems and beliefs,
creating capacity among the individuals to absorb new ideas, and opening up of
avenues for social mobility.
Education is more than schooling or being literate. It is a social process which enables
and promotes the skills, knowledge and the broadening of personal horizons. It is a
process which brings about changes in the behavior of society. It is a process which
enables every individual to effectively participate in the activities of society and to
make positive contribution to the progress of society.
Education and social change are linked in following ways:
1. Initiate social change: Education propagates such ideas which promote social
change in all fields of life. Education creates a desire for change in a society
which is a pre-requisite for any kind of change to come. Many great evils like
Sati, and child marriage were largely banished from Indian society due to
education.
2. Capacity to welcome change: Education creates capacity to welcome and
accept social change easily and gladly. Education creates a wholesome and
conducive environment for the social changes to become acceptable to all.
3. Equality of opportunity: Modern education system and schools provide
equality of opportunity to members of society to a great extent regardless of
their position in the system of stratification. It helps in creating a more open
society, and provides greater opportunities of social mobility.
4. Moral agent: Education also plays a role in imbibing social values like empathy,
and rational investigation. It upgrades personal skills and make members more
valuable in society. Schools perform the function of laying moral foundation in
society.
5. Economic role: Education also has a close linkage with economic system. Mass
education began only with industrial revolution. It began as the need of
economic system. Technical education helped in scaling up the industries
which heralded industrial revolution.
6. Fights orthodoxy, promotes liberal ideas: Education strives to banish social
evils, blind customs and traditions through various social reform projects. It
helps in minimizing discrimination. Schools in modern societies are designed
to promote uniformity, standardized aspirations and universalistic values. This
is done through uniform textbooks, uniform dress code and a common
pedagogy.
7. Evaluate change: Apart from these, education also accelerates and stimulates
change, and later helps us in evaluating social change.

Education as perpetuating agent of inequality:
1. From a Marxian perspective, education reproduces and legitimizes the ruling
class ideology and justify inequality. It teaches people to accept and submit to
their exploitation.
2. It teaches conforming to rules rather than initiating social change.
3. There is inequality in opportunities of education. Those belonging to upper
class have better access to quality education and thus have better educational
attainment. Whereas those belonging to lower class have low educational
attainment due to poor access to education. Educational attainment then
becomes a justification of inequality. Thus in a non-egalitarian society
education perpetuates inequality.
4. Merit in education system is based on measured intelligence. However the
notion of intelligence is culturally defined. So the people who do not come
from dominant culture will be termed as less intelligent and hence less
deserving due the fact that they do not possess the knowledge that is valued
in dominant culture.
5. According to Pierre Bourdieu, education involve reproduction of the culture of
dominant culture. The success of school education depends on the education
previously accomplished in the earliest years of life. It does not start from
scratch but assumes prior skills and knowledge. Those who have this
knowledge in the form of cultural capital have higher success rate in education.
6.5. Science, technology and social change
Science and technology are essential ingredients of modern life. Evolution of mankind
can be seen in terms of technological evolution. Invention of fire and wheel changed
the face of mankind. Various historical epochs viz. hunter-gatherers, agrarian society,
industrialist society are distinguished from each other in term of technological
advancement. Invention of steam engine heralded industrial revolution and also led
to increased international trade as shipping became faster. Aided by technology,
Green Revolution in India led to self-sufficiency in food grains and no major famine
has hit India since then. Japan is a classic example of a nation which has scarce natural
resources, but is among the most developed countries due to development in science
and technology.
Science and technology and social change are related in the following ways:
1. Technology increases efficiency, and reduces costs of production. Thus more
resources can be made available for social sectors such as healthcare, and
education.
2. Technology results in improved health care which in turn results in healthy and
more productive workforce. This accelerates the pace of development.

3. Science strikes at the root of superstitions and religious authority in social life.
It produces secular outlook and challenges orthodox traditions like caste
system.
4. Science and technology can help lift millions above poverty by helping in
improving food security and making basic amenities more affordable.
5. Science and technology has greatly improved connectivity and
communication. People can remain in touch with each other in a never before
manner. It enabled increased geographical mobility, and gave rise to functional
joint family whose nuclear units no live together.
6. Green revolution changed power structure and caste dominance in rural India.
7. Internet provided equal access to knowledge and skill. It has the potential to
significantly alter the culture and social structure of Indian society.
Similar technologies may have different impacts in different societies. Printing in China
lead to standardization of manuscripts, but in Europe it lead to diversity in literary
works. During Second World War, nuclear power was used to annihilate two cities,
but was later used for peaceful purposes also. Similarly, information technology can
also be used for centralization and espionage, but can also be used for empowerment
and social change as well.
Over-reliance on science and technology is also leading to a shift in from ‘adaptation’
to ‘actively changing’ the environment. This is having serious consequences in terms
of climate change and increasing frequency of disasters.
One major difficulty in technology as source of change is that its impact on society is
not visible in short run. Technological changes don’t lead to social change so easily and
often there is backlash as well. Early use of anesthesia, stem cell research, genetic
engineering, cloning etc. were all opposed as an attempt of man playing as god.
Luddites vandalized industrial machinery as a reaction to newly introduced machines
at workplace.
Issues with technology
1. Alienation: Some technologies like automation lead to monotony at
workplace. Marxists also argue that technology alienates man from its labor,
and fruit of labor. Robert Blauner also highlighted the alienating aspects of
technology at work place.
2. Unemployment: In modern times, technology becomes obsolete too quickly,
and mechanization reduces labour requirement. One of the reason for high
unemployment in India is the fact that education in universities has become
obsolete as industries have adopted newer technologies. Further there is
apprehension that technologies like Artificial Intelligence will eliminate some
type of jobs.
3. Facilitates social evils: Just as technology can be used for development, it can
also be used to practice social evils with better ease. For example, ultrasound

sound technology in India is often used for sex selection of child which has
resulted in a skewed sex ratio at birth. Similarly, matrimonial websites have
made it much easier to practice caste endogamy.

7. Other important topics
Pierre Bourdieu - Education and cultural reproduction
According to Pierre Bourdieu, the major role of education is cultural reproduction. This
does not involve the transmission of culture of society as a whole, but instead the
reproduction of the culture of the ‘dominant classes’. The dominant classes have the
power to define their own culture as ‘worthy of being sought and possessed’ and to
establish it as the basis for knowledge in the education system.
Bourdieu refers to the dominant culture as ‘cultural capital’, because via the
educational system it can be translated into wealth and power. Cultural capital is not
evenly distributed throughout the class structure and this largely accounts for the
class differences in education attainment. Students with upper class backgrounds
have a built advantage in society because they have been socialized into the dominant
culture. Bourdieu claims that, ‘the success of all school education depends
fundamentally on the education previously accomplished in the earliest years of life’.
Education in school merely builds on this basis. It does not start from scratch but
assumes prior skills and knowledge. Children from the dominant classes have
internalized these skills and knowledge in their pre-school years. The educational
attainments of social groups is therefore directly related to the amount of cultural
capital they possess.
The middle class students have higher success rates that working class students
because middle class sub-culture is closer to the dominant culture. Due to their
relative lack of dominant culture, working class pupils are more likely to fail
examinations and more likely to fail examinations which prevents them from entering
higher education.
These arguments lead Bourdieu to conclude that the major role of education in society
is the contribution it makes to social reproduction - the reproduction of the
relationships of power and privilege between social classes. Social inequality is
reproduced in the educational system and as result it is legitimized. The privileged
position of dominant classes is justified by educational success, the under privileged
position of lower classes is legitimated by educational failure.
Pierre Bourdieu - forms of capital
1. Economic capital: It consists of material goods such as property, wealth and
income.
2. Social capital: It refers to one's networks of friends and contacts. Bourdieu
defined social capital as the resources that individuals or groups gain 'by virtue
of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships
of mutual acquaintance and recognition'.

3. Cultural capital: It refers to types of knowledge, skills and education which
confer advantages on those who acquire them. Cultural capital can be
embodied (in forms of speech or bodily comportment), objectified (in cultural
products such as works of art) or institutionalized (in educational
qualifications).
4. Symbolic capital: It refers to social honor, prestige or recognition. The idea of
symbolic capital is similar to that of social status.
These four forms of capital also differs in the degree of intergenerational
transferability. For example, economic capital can be more easily transferred to next
generation than other capitals. According to Pierre Bourdieu, one form of capital can
be converted to into other forms.
Robert Putnam - social capital
According to Robert Putnam, social capital refers to connections among individuals -
social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from
them. Putnam makes a distinction between two kinds of social capital:
1. Bonding capital: Bonding occurs when you are socializing with people who are
like you: same age, same race, same religion, and so on.
2. Bridging capital: Bridging is what you do when you make friends with people
who are not like you, like supporters of another football team.
He argues that in order to create peaceful societies in a diverse multi-ethnic country,
one need to have bridging kind of social capital. Robert Putnam, is his famous work
'Bowling Alone' argues that the USA has undergone an unprecedented collapse in
civic, social, associational, and political life since the 1960s. He reasoned that this was
due to decline in social capital. Low social capital brings a feeling of alienation within
society is associated with additional consequences such as less happiness and lower
perceived quality of life.
Critics of Putnam have challenged his claim that social capital has declined. They argue
that Putnam has neglected the emergence of new forms of supportive organizations
on and off the Internet. Further, the 1960s is a misleading baseline because that era
had an unusually high number of traditional organizations.
William Ogburn - cultural lag
Cultural lag refers to the lag which develops when culture of a society does not keep
pace with material changes which are often technological. According to Ogburn,
‘technological progress produces rapid changes in the material aspects of our culture,
but the non-material aspects fail to adjust or they do so only after an excessive time
lag’. Thus, cultural lag refers to the phenomenon of cultural change being slower than
material changes. As a result, many troublesome social problems are created.

Criticism:
1. We must not assume that changes in the material aspects of culture always
precede changes in the non-material aspects. There is a constant interaction
between the two. In the long run, technological progress itself is largely
dependent on certain non- material factors, such as social attitudes.
2. It involves value judgement of what changes are desirable. If desired cultural
changes does not take place, it would be labelled as lagging. Thus, the cultural
lag is not an objective fact but a result of the observer’s subjective valuation of
the state of society.
Subcultural theories of deviance
1. Albert Cohen: Lower working class have little opportunities to attain success
goals of mainstream culture. This leads to frustration and dissatisfaction
among them. Hence they reject the success goals of the mainstream culture
and replace with an alternative set of norms and values in terms of which they
can achieve success and gain prestige. The result is a delinquent subculture.
According to Cohen, the delinquent subculture takes its norms from the larger
culture but turn them upside down. Thus, a high value is placed on activities
such as vandalism which are condemned in the wider society. Cohen thus
provides an explanation for delinquent acts which do not appear to be
motivated by monetary reward.
2. Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin: They argue that there is greater pressure on
members of working class to deviate because they have less opportunity to
succeed by legitimate means. There are three possible responses to this
situation - ‘criminal subculture’, ‘conflict subculture’ and ‘retreatist
subculture’.
 Criminal subculture tend to emerge in areas where there is an
established pattern of organized crime. In such areas a learning
environment is provided for the young; they are exposed to criminal
skills, deviant values and presented with criminal role models. They
have access to ‘illegitimate opportunity structure’. Criminal subcultures
are mainly concerned with ‘utilitarian crime’ which produces financial
reward.
 Conflict subcultures tend to develop in areas where adolescents have
little opportunity for access to illegitimate opportunity structures. Thus
both legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures are blocked.
The response to this situation is often gang violence which serves as a
release for anger and frustration.
 Some lower class adolescents form retreatist subcultures organized
mainly around illegal drug use because they have failed to succeed in
both the legitimate and illegitimate structures.

3. Walter Miller: Miller argues that in lower class communities, delinquency is a
part of the learned cultural values rather than an anomic reaction to
unattainable goals.
Howard Becker - labelling theory
Howard Becker argues that ‘social groups create deviance by making the rules whose
infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and
labelling them as outsider’. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act
the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of the rules
and sanctions to an “offender”. Thus the deviant is one to whom the label has been
successfully applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. Becker is
suggesting that in one sense there is no such thing as deviant act. An act become
deviant when others perceive and define it as such. For example, in a low-income
neighbourhood brawl (rough fight) involving young people may be defined by the
police as evidence of delinquency while in a wealthy neighbourhood as evidence of
youthful high spirits. The acts are the same but the meanings given to them by the
audience differ. Thus Becker argues, ‘deviance is not a quality that lies in behaviour
itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who
respond to it’.
According to Becker, a label defines an individual as a particular kind of person. It is a
master status in the sense that it colors all other status possessed by an individual. If
a person is labelled as criminal, the label largely overrides his status as father, worker,
neighbour and friend. Others see him and respond to him in terms of the label and
tend to assume he has the negative characteristics normally associated with such
label. Since an individual’s self-concept is largely derived from the responses of others,
he tends to see himself in terms of the label. This may produce a self-fulfilling
philosophy whereby ‘the deviant identification becomes the controlling one’. In this
context, he confirms and accepts his deviant identity. He may then act in terms of this
self-concept which would legitimize his label of a deviant.
Ethnocentrism
The term ethnocentrism then refers to the tendency for each society to place its own
culture patterns at the centre of things. Ethnocentrism is the practice of comparing
other cultural practices with those of one's own and automatically finding those other
cultural practices to be inferior.
Functions of ethnocentrism:
1. It eliminates criticism of the social order.
2. It encourages the solidarity of the group. Believing that one's own ways are
the best, encourages a "we" feeling with associates.
3. It promotes continuance of the status quo and hence provides stability to
society.

Dysfunctions of ethnocentrism:
1. It obstructs intercultural relation.
2. It often result in conflicts.
3. It prevents social change through diffusion as the present values are held to be
superior to that of other cultures.

Sociology - Paper 1 - Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sociology - Paper 1 - Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology - Paper 1 - Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 1

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 2

1.1. Concepts: equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion, poverty and deprivation

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 3

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 4

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 5

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 6

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 7

Poverty and stratification

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 8

1.3. Theories of social stratification

Structural functionalist theory

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 9

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 10

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 11

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 12

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 13

1.4. Dimensions of social stratification - gender, ethnicity and race

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 14

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 15

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 16

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 17

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 18

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 19

1.6. Sources and causes of mobility

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 20

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 21

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 22

Ann Oakley on housework

2.1. Social organization of work in different types of society

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 23

2.2. Formal and informal organization of work

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 24

2.3. Labour and society

Karl Marx on labour

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 25

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 26

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 27

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 28

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 29

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 30

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 31

3.1. Sociological theories of power

Talcott Parsons - Variable-sum concept of power (functionalist perspective)

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 32

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 33

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 34

Pluralism or Elite pluralism

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 35

Weber defined bureaucracy as, ‘a hierarchical organisation designed rationally to

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 36

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 37

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 38

3.3. Pressure groups and political parties

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 39

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 40

© Pankaj Rasgania Page: 41

3.4. Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology