Module 1 - sociological concepts, perspectives and methods

001. Sociology as a discipline

The plantation model

The model was proposed in the works written by Best, Beckford and Levitt
who all shared a perspective based in political economy. They analysed the social and
economic institutions of Caribbean society to demonstrate that the ‘plantation
society’ was a society in a historic, dependent relationship with metropolitan
countries.

The term ‘plantation’ is used to describe Caribbean society then, and now. It is
used as a metaphor in referring to society today. The metaphor is useful because
although in many countries the estates and plantations of the yesteryear have given
way to tourism, mining, and light manufacturing, while the system of social
stratification has been modified by upward social mobility for many, Caribbean
society remains fundamentally tied to the plantation model.

George Beckford’s analysis begins historically to show how the interaction of social,
economic and political institutions of the colonial era produced plantation society.
He characterised them as places where:
1. During slavery, on plantations a large group of people were held in an
organisation closely supervised by a small number of persons, of a different
race. All aspects of the lives of persons held in total institutions are controlled
by those in authority. The plantation was a total institution
2. Authority and power lay with the white groups and their allies and so, on the
plantation itself, and in the society at large, a hierarchy developed where race
was institutionalised in the social and occupational structure. Authority and
power today lie in white, coloured or black groups which have more or less
continued the practices of the white groups of the past who were once the
colonial power
3. The economy of plantation society is deeply rooted in the markets of the
metropolitan centres

1
 4. Today, these economies still produce largely primary goods for export and
suffer from an imbalance in the terms of trade because manufacturing,
industrial development and services are at a minimal level of development
5. There is continued dependency on metropolitan countries because Caribbean
societies maintain the emphasis on monoculture, largely ignore food
production and import much in the way of food, consumer durables and
technology.
Becford argued that plantation economies today are severely hampered in their quest
for sustained growth and development because of this ingrained legacy of foreign
domination.

Criticisms
01. The theory was overly deterministic and saw all Caribbean societies in one
light. For example; Best and Levitt relied too much on historical
circumstances to explain the present situation and did not include the
varieties of ways that each society had changed since independence.
02. The theory sought to describe and explain Caribbean societies as they had
evolved but there was no empirical data or attempt made to test the theory.
03. There is a limit to how ‘independent’ Caribbean countries can be in devising
solutions to their economic predicament especially in this age of globalisation.

002. Sociological Perspectives and Social Theory

Functionalism
In this view, society is seen as a whole entity (the social system) that is made up of
different parts (social organisations, social institutions) which integrate smoothly
with each other to create and re-create an orderly society.
The purpose of the functionalist perspective is to understand how to maintain social
order.

Characteristics of Functionalism

★ Functionalism is based on the idea of consensus.

★ The macro level of society is the focus of the functionalist perspective
★ Individuals play their part in the functioning of social institutions

2
 ★ Comte and Durkheim contributed to developing the functionalist perspective
of society
★ There is persistent criticism of functionalism from the interpretive perspective

Conflict Theory / Marxism

Based on the idea that inter-group differences, disputes, struggles and
tensions are endemic in society because of disparities in power, interests and
attitudes (the role of conflict).

Karl Marx saw the fundamental conflict in society as social class conflict. This
was on-going and inevitable because capitalists and workers comprised a unity
within which there were contradictions leading to the potential for imminent conflict
and change.

In the case of capitalism one group or class of people, few in number, controls
the ownership and assets of the production enterprise. These persons own a great
deal of capital be it in land, property or money and are known as the bourgeoisie
class. The other social class, the workers (the proletariat), only have their labour
power to sell.

According to Marx, social change occurs when the dialectical relationships

operating in society become extremely oppressive for one group. Capitalism operates
within a contradictory context: for example, capitalists want to make as much profits
as they can and so wages are kept as low as possible. Workers on the other hand want
to maximise their reward for labour.

Because of this, the proletariat unite and the bourgeoisie use thor power in
government and the armed forces to bring back ‘order’ but the proletariat can also
be awakened from their sleep of false consciousness to understand how they have
been exploited.

Marxists differ from the functionalists who understand society in terms of

consensus, shared values, norms, order, cohesion and integration. However, both
groups have a macrosociological focus – they attempt to explain society at the level of

3
the system, the whole societies and how they develop over time. As a result, both
groups understand society in terms of social structure.

Functionalism sees the social system as comprising social institutions and

organisations, and norms, values and other established practices as influencing and
guiding human behaviour. Marxists do not dispute this structural framework except
to say that the institution of the economy plays the fundamental role in structuring
society and all other institutions mirror the relations of production evident in the
economy – relations characterised by conflict, contradiction, alienation, social
control, coercion, power and oppression.

Marxism argues that the functionalist idea of society is an optimistic one that
takes no account of the inequalities that occur through social and economic
marginalisation. It assumes that all persons in the society want the same goals and
believes that social order comes about because of this consensus. Marxists, however,
point out that if social order exists it is because of the social control exerted on less
powerful groups by the more powerful.
Whilst functionalists see social institutions interacting to support a thriving
society, Marxists see the elites in the society dominating each social institution and
interacting in ways to ensure they continue to thrive.

Interactionism
Can be seen from the Social Action theory (Max Weber) and Symbolic
Interaction (George Herbert Mead and Charkes Horton Cooley).

Interactionism, which is a micro sociological perspective, sees the individual

as a knowing person who exercises agency in choosing his/her actions whilst
macrosociology analyses society from a structural point of view and the individual is
largely seen as passive.

Social action - Max Weber wanted to understand the connectedness between

how individuals made meaning and acted on those meanings (subjective knowledge)
and the eventual macro-level processes that resulted; he was interested in learning

4
about the motivation that people had for their actions, not only the end results of
those actions.
Weber in his studies of society realised that people in modern society with its
large-scale industrial and urban complexes were destined to develop more of the
second type, rational and instrumental relationships, because of the nature of
modern social life.

Symbolic interaction - the main point is that much of our ‘self’ and our mind
[our thoughts] is influenced by the social processes and interactions in which we are
enmeshed; we are not the ‘individuals’ we sometimes think we are – the individual is
closely linked to society and symbolic interactionists study that relationship. They
see individuals as constantly engaged in constructing their ‘selves’ taking their cues
from others about how to act.

Mead stated that society was made up of symbols or things and as we grew up
to share in the meanings others had for those symbols. Mead felt that without the
symbols we would not have the opportunity to develop a self. Symbols made
thought, communication and interpretation possible. For example; in the Caribbean
we speak of ‘electricity’ whereas in the United States the word ‘power’ is more widely
used. Symbolic interactionists therefore describe and explain our actions/identities
based on this theory of the self that is only constructed because of the symbols about
which we share meaning.

Feminist Theory

Rooted in the Conflict and Marxist Perspective and its central construct is that
society has historically been influenced by patriarchy. Feminists also work in the
interpretive perspective and so carry out both marco and microsociological research.
Both Marxist and Feminist thought is dterministic in that the former understands
opression interms of class conflict and the latter in term of the opression of women
by men.

Feminists criticise the discipline of sociology for being dominated by mean –

recognition given to then founding fathers and whilst Harriet Martineau and Jane

5
Addams were sidelined. In addition, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development was
built up based on only males as a subject, for example. Evident in such work is the
idea that what males experience can be generalised to females.

The suffrage movement of the early 20th century, when women made a bid for
equality in the area of political rights, brought feminist thought to the forefront of the
public domain. The women’s movement was recognised that voting rights did not
confer on them other forms of equality.

Whatever the particular feminist framework though, feminist thought is

directed to one end, the emancipation of women and men from unequal and
oppressive relationships.

Sociological perspectives on socialisation

Functionalism - says that primary and secondary processes of socialisation
influence individuals to act in conformist ways to take up the roles assigned to them
– student, friend, parent, teacher, brother, etc. These theories are ‘deterministic’ and
focus on whole groups of people being influenced in uniform ways. For example; the
school is believed to inculcate respect for punctuality and regular attendance among
students which are valued dispositions needed in any aspect of public life – the work
world.

Marxist - also have macro-level focus and therefore tend to emphasise the
social structure – the patterned relationships that exist in and between social
institutions. They do not believe socialisation to be a uniform process influencing
members in the same ways. The Marxist view is that groups are socialised according
to the norms and values of the socio-economic group to which they belong. For
example; a child living in a lower socio-economic neighbourhood will be socialised
into a culture where poverty, marginalisation and oppression are part of everyday
life.

Interpretive - examines encounters between specific individuals and groups.

For example, the children in a family interacting with their parents. Socialisation is
studied as a process that may impact individuals in multiple ways because

6
individuals are seen as meaning makers who interpret their role. Hence, in the family
one child conforms and the other resists family norms and values.

Feminist - there is evidence to show that we take on gender identities and

gender roles in accordance with how we have been socialisd since birth. Gender
theorists also want to point out that popular images of masculinity tend to be
coercive to those males who are different and who would prefer other forms of
masculinity but they are constrained by peer pressure to conform.

003. Culture and Social Order

Sociological Perspectives on Culture

Functionalism - Durkheim felt that the customs, traditions, and rituals of

religion created norms amongst people that served to unite them, build social
solidarity and preserve social order.

Functionalism emphasises consensus and harmony and downplays

differences but the existence of groups different enough to form subcultures (e.g., the
maroons) and even countercultures (e.g., the rastafarians), means that norms, beliefs
and values are likely to be contested.

Functionalist perspectives on culture then emphasises group norms and

values encouraging a view of society as an entity tending towards integration and
solidarity.
Culture is often spoken in ways that equate it with the nation state, for example,
Jamaican culture.

Marxism - culture constrains us by supporting inequalities. It is the adaptive

mechanisms of the rich and powerful, which determine what religions, arts, healing
practices, education and so on that are considered legitimate by the society. The
culture of the elites (the capitalists) dominates the society because their ideas, values,
and beliefs are enshrined in the institutions of the superculture. Their culture is so

7
embedded as the legitimate culture that it becomes an ideology – it is their norms,
beliefs and values which become a comprehensive world view.

The culture of the wealthier groups justifies their habits and practices for
example who they associate with and who they ignore, who they hire and who they
fire, which political groups they support and which they see as threatening to their
interests.
This dominant culture oppresses the poor and powerless because the
ideologies in the society are those which privilege the priorities of the wealthy. The
poor are manipulated to accept and recognise and even embrace these values, a
condition referred to as false consciousness.

In the Marxist view, our Caribbean elites perpetuate a false set of ideas about
culture and make it legitimate through their support of popular culture, Western
fashion, music, art, established and mainstream religions, the foreign media, local
media houses, technology, books, the publishing industry, etc..

Interpretive Perspective - Weber pointed out that within cultures there were
subcultures motivated by their separate interests but they were not necessarily in
conflict with each other. In this perspective,people are seen as having agency and
thus being able on a daily basis to create, conform or resist cultural beliefs.
Everyone in society is constantly reinterpreting their values and norms.
Culture is therefore dynamic. People can display a range of cultural attitudes and
beliefs based on what is meaningful to them.
They put forward the idea that people actively interpret their culture and do
not just passively absorb the beliefs and values of their social class or social location
– (marxists believe differently). We may deliberately choose to listen to Western hip
hop or other types of music but that does not mean we regard our reggae, soca, zouk
or punta as somehow inferior.