1. How would you differentiate between functionalist and structural functionalist perspective? (Cite example) According to the functionalist perspective of sociology, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society's stability and functioning as a whole. For example, the government provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. Ifall does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur. Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, in which members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a whole. This stands apart from the other two main sociological perspectives: symbolic interactionalism, which focuses on how people act according to their interpretations of the meaning of their world, and conflict theory, which focuses on the negative, conflicted, ever-changing nature of society.Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an event, such as divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the part of society's members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for any problems that may arise. 2. According to Habbermes What is modernity - Critically discuss. Modernity is defined by Habermas as a set of problems related to the issue of time, problems produced by the transformationof European society in accordance with what Hegel called the “principle of subjectivity,” the notion of individual autonomy as the essence of man. 3. How did the punishment system in our society develop over the period? From the beginning of time, humans have seen revenge as a valid form of punishment. History tells us that punishments were often doled out by the victim of a crime as revenge or payback. Eventually, people realized that having families constantly seeking revenge on each other wasn't a productive way to live, so laws and rules regarding crime and punishment were established. These new laws were designed so that the punishment matched the crime, even though more often than not, thepunishment was still inflicted by the victim as a form of revenge. The Code of Hammurabi became one of the first legal codes to be established, and modern criminal justice is still influenced by it Hammurabi was a Babylonian king who ruled from 1792 until 1750 B.C.E. The Code of Hammurabi was a set of legal precedents for different types of crimes and disputes, ranging from family law to contracts and major crimes — this is one of the earliest examples of the "innocent until proven guilty" adage that we still follow today. The Code of Hammurabi included specific punishments based on the criminal's age, social class and gender. For example, if a rich man was found guilty of stealing, he would be charged a higher fine than if a slave was found guilty of stealing. Alternately, the punishment for killing arich person would be far more severe than for killing a slave. But the punishments weren't always as logical as the laws themselves. The punishments could be extremely gruesome and cruel since they relied heavily upon the laws of retribution, or "an eye for an eye." So, if a man broke his colleague's leg, then his punishment would be to have his own leg broken. The punishments could end up being as severe as mutilation, dismemberment or even violent death. Early philosophers play a major role in how we look at crime and punishment today. They also help us understand why crime and punishment are important. They helped humanity understand that the reason for committing a crime can have an impact on how severe a punishment should be.The Romans were the first people to look at crime and punishment as a purely human trait. Historical crime and punishment commonly claimed that punishing a criminal was "doing God's work" and that committing a crime was the same as sinning. But the Romans saw crime as an insult to society as a whole, and Roman Law was established to bring order to society. Roman Law was less concerned about pleasing religious deities and more concerned with ensuring society was safe, orderly and fair. Many of the basics of Roman Law are still practiced in modern civil law and criminal justice in the 21st century. The evolution of crime and punishment took a few steps backward in the MiddleAges when the rise of Christianity made it closely linked to religion again. This meant, once again, crimes were considered to be acts against God, and punishments for these crimes were God's work. The biggest change in how we deal with crimes and criminals today is in the types of punishments that are legally allowed. We no longer punish criminals as an act of revenge, and we have, thankfully, done away with torturous punishments, designed to humiliate and inflict pain. Instead, we now focus more on responding to crime with reform. We also don't have public punishments anymore — while public executions and floggings used to be typical, we now understand that those punishments were less for the sake of rehabilitation and more a way to publicly humiliate a person. Eventually, punishments for crimesbecame less public and more private. 4. How would you explain any issue (As per preference) of your society from neo functionalist perspective? (Give an example) 5. Ethno methodology perspective explains the concealed meaning of circstances. Ethnomethodology is a perspective within sociology which focuses on the way people make sense of their everyday life. People are seen as rational actors, but employ practical reasoning rather than formal logic to make sense of and function in society. The theory argues that human society is entirely dependent on these methods of achieving and displaying understanding.Ethnomethodology is a qualitative research methodology which has recently gained momentum across disciplines, more specifically social and health sciences. Ethnomethodology focuses on the study of methods that individuals use in “doing” social life to produce mutually recognizable interactions within a situated context, producing orderliness. It explores how members’ actual, ordinary activities produce and manage settings of organized everyday situations. Practice through everyday life is central to ethnomethodology, the methods of which produce and maintain accountable circumstances of their life activities, making use of common sense knowledge in mundane situations. Ethhomethodology originated from Garfinkel who criticized Parsons’ action theory whereby Garfinkel illustrated how ethnomethodology departs from conventional social theory to developa methodology for studying social life. Ethnomethodology draws on video- recorded data as a preferred method with detailed attention to talk-in-interaction and gestures as interaction. The rich, detailed data generated may be viewed several times over, thus demonstrating that the data is valuable and trustworthy. The concepts of indexicality, reflexivity, and accountability are central to ethnomethodology because together they illustrate meaning as a methodical accomplishment. The reflexive accountability that contributes to order and the members’ local performance of shared methods to carry out a joint activity form the central values of ethnomethodology. The analytical resources of ethnomethodology have been used to produce procedural accounts of human conduct in zones like museums, classrooms, and sports. Hence health care can be explored and empiricallyinvestigated as local interactions to contribute to patient safety. 6. Differentiate between phenomenology and ethnomethology. Literally, phenomenology is the study of phenomena; appearances of thing or things as they appear in our experience or the ways we experience things. Phenomenology studies various experience as experienced from the subjective or the first person point of view. Phenomenology is a 20th century philosophical way of thinking about the nature of reality, which has influenced sociology. The German philosopher Edward Hussral is closely linked with phenomenology. Phenomenology argues that the only “phenomena” that we can be sure of is that we are conscious thinkingbeings therefore we should study any phenomena around us in terms of the way we consciously experience them. This examination should be free of pre- conceptions of causal ideas. These ideas influenced sociologists such as Alfred Schutz who thought that sociology should look at the way individual construct the social world. Phenomenology is used in two basic ways in sociology: (1) to theorise about substantive sociological problems, (2) to enhance the adequacy of sociological research methods. There are two expressions of this approach, which are constructivism and ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology integrates the Parsonian concern for social order into phenomenology and examines the means by which action make ordinary life possible. Ethnomethodology as a sociologicalperspective was founded by American sociologist Harold Garfinkel is early 1960s. The main ideas behind it are set out in his book Studies in Ethhomethodology. It differs from their sociological perspectives in the way that which all the perspectives pre-suppose that social world is orderly, ethnomethodologists start out with the assumption that social order is illusory. For them social order is constructed in the minds of social actors as society confront the individual as a series of sense impressions and experiences which she or he must somehow organise into a coherent pattern. However, along with the changes in the broader perspectives in the development studies there can be seen another trend of changes in the approaches. The development approach gradually started to be more specialised and specific. It has become more local and regional inorientation. The early and the modern thinkers of development have been fundamentally associated with theoretical orientation of structuralism but the later development thinking has rejected this view. This approach exhibits more diversities in theoretical orientation. The earlier groups are concerned with generalised theoretical orientation having world — wide application for development. But the present development thinking does not believe in general application of generalised theories. Now the development approaches are not relevant across the wider regions. This development approaches are related not only to growth but to what kind of growth, not simply to development but what kind of development. This has helped in emergence of approaches in diverse new directions which have come to be known as sustainable development, people-friendly growth, pro-poor growth, etc. Now the development approach is related to groups, actor- oriented approach, and participatory approach. 7. Discuss the social factor to contribute developing modern sociological 9. Globalization Anthony Gidden: Giddens sees globalization as the motor of development that brings varied changes, which shape modern societies. It is a process that contains varied, often opposing, tendencies. But we cannot criticize globalization completely. Neither can we stop it. Yet we cannot ignore its potentially negative effects, such as the growth of social unevenness, ecological and financial risk (global risk society). As critics of globalizationsshow, different effects persist among different societies in the world, even within one society. According to Giddens, globalization affects societies, firms and the personal lives of people. The result is a hierarchical system of three distinct levels (left panel, Fig. 2). Individual citizens (people) affect transnational corporations or local firms and their respective industry value chains. And people are also members of the global society where TCs grow, in turn influencing individual people's quality of life through time.