Emergence of Socio summary

Sociology and History

GE Howard- “History is past sociology, Sociology is present history”

● While historians study the past, sociologists are more interested in contemporary or
recent past
 ● Subject matter of both overlap to a large extent as historians provide the data forming
base for sociological study like for ex- Industrial Revolution forms the theme of many
sociological studies
Karl Marx (historical materialism) and Durkheim, Ghurye’s Indology pioneered
the use of historical data in their sociological discourse

Weber’s PESC also uses a historical particular ideal type

Durkheim- talked about the evolution of societies from organic to mechanical

solidarity

Radcliffe Brown states that sociology is nomothetic while history is idiographic

● The historians describe unique events whereas sociologists make general and
abstract theories. In other words, sociology is analytical and generalizing while
history is descriptive and particularizing

● However, there are works of historians which focus on patterns

while sometimes sociologists have concerned themselves with
the study of unique event. An example of the former is R.H.
Tawney’s “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism” while “The Polish
Peasant” by Thomas and Znaniecki is as idiographic as any
historical study can be.
● Conventional history has been about the history of kings and war.
The history of less glamorous or exciting events as changes in
land relations or gender relations within the family have
traditionally been less studied by historians but formed the core
area of the sociologist’s interest.

● These days, history is not just concerned with which and what
events, but also the how of events and Historians today are
equally involved in doing sociological methods and concepts in
their analysis i.e. Social History.Historian, today, looks at social
patterns, gender relations, mores, customs and important
institutions other than the acts of rulers, wars and monarchy.
Hence, the line of demarcation is becoming increasingly blurred
as History is no longer a descriptive account of the past events.

(Refer table on Pg.14- NS)

Sociology and Political Science

● Political science focus primarily on two elements: political theory and government
administration. Sociology was born in the political upheaval of the French Revolution
and it would not be wrong to call pol. sc. as ‘Socio from the top’

● Beginning of convergence was made with Rousseau - the first to speak of revolution
to change inequality to an egalitarian society Marx built on this and according to him
political institutions and behavior are closely linked with the economic system and
social classes. His vision of communism uses sociological ideas to bring about a
political revolution.
● Provoked by this thinking, some thinkers pursued the matter in detail with studies of
political parties, bureaucracy, voting behavior, and political ideologies. Weber
developed sociological theories of power and authority in his study on bureaucracy
Pareto, Mosca, Michels, and later CW Mills contributed to the ‘elite theory’.

● Pol sc provides laws affecting the welfare of masses and socio provides the data and
basis for such laws and policies. Social considerations- caste, kinship, and
demography play a major role in political decisions and especially in elections.

● Parsons in his AGIL theory states that politics gives society goals for attainment

● Wallerstein's ‘dependency theory’ is a convergence of international politics and

global sociology as demonstrated by the widespread impact of Brexit, confrontational
bloc politics (NATO-Russia) causing supply chain disruptions and soaring inflation,
vaccine inequity

● Political systems affect social institutions also like organization of family is impacted
by it. Ex- China’s 2-child norm, India’s forced sterilization and population policies,
America’s open values, and Pak’s religious code.

● Studies have also been conducted on membership of political parties, and

sociological reasons for support of parties. Social concepts like ethnicity, caste, and
religion are often used to mobilize people politically, for example - Patidar agitation,
Jaat Andolan, reservation politics (growing demand for caste census), and this is
reflected in the ‘social strain theory of Neil. J. Smelser

● Pressure groups lobbying to get their demands fulfilled from the State
(eg- rollback of controversial farm laws, pro-choice groups advocating
rollback of abortion rights in the USA, etc.)

● Tiananmen Square and the Arab Spring were manifestations of

society taking political systems head-on. There is a renewal of interest
in Marxist sociological ideas in both developed and developing
countries. Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic
socialist. The recent wave of communist governments in Latin
American countries (Chile, Colombia, Argentina, etc.) is due to the
mismanagement of the pandemic by the corrupt right.

As the modern state is increasingly getting involved in providing

welfare amenities, the sociological tinge to political activity and
 political thinking is gaining more and more acceptance.
Exemplified by the surge in welfare spending (stimulus cheques in
the USA) to revive COVID-battered economies

(Refer table on Pg.15- NS)

Sociology and Anthropology

● Anthro- the study of all aspects of life in a ‘simple society’, human evolution,
concerned with pre-literate societies
Socio-study of some aspects or processes of ‘complex societies’

● Both had difft origins. Western socio thinkers had a ready context in the form of FR,
Modernism, IR; Anthro had to discover their own context by venturing out to primitive
inhabitations, also borrowed from pre-historic Archaeology.

● ↑convergence these days; both have the same subject matter- Man. Today the
distinction between a simple society and a complex one is not very clear. India itself
is a mix of tradition and modernity. Villages exist in the heart of Delhi, while Call
centers serve American clients from small towns. Hence the spheres of anthropology
and sociology are coming closer.

● Anthropologists use the structural-functionalist approach, fieldwork, and participant

observation as data collection techniques, and these are now adopted by sociologists
too. Sociology has borrowed concepts like cultural lag from cultural anthropology and
the works of EB Tylor, Spencer’s social Darwinism from Darwin’s evolutionary
theory while Marx’s primitive communism idea inspired the anthropologists

● Durkheim did an ethnography study of Arunta tribes to develop his division of labour
theory. MS Srinivas, Andre Beteille and SC Dube used field studies to study Indian
villages.
● The works of Talcott Parsons and R.K. Merton are attempts towards an
adaptation of a functionalist approach to study industrial societies and William
Whyte has adopted participant observation for the study of modern industrial
society. Thus the disciplines are increasingly merging into each other.

● There have been fruitful interchanges between the two disciplines and today often
methods and techniques are drawn from both. There have been anthropological
studies of the state and globalization, which are very different from the traditional
subject matter of social anthropology (a study of a small society, origin in
colonialism, eurocentric viewpoint- western society taken as a benchmark).
Malinowski- social anthro can also be called as comparative socio.
Socio too has been using quantitative and qualitative techniques, macro and micro
approaches for studying the complexities of modern societies

● Field work in Anthro

Early social anthropological research was largely concerned with the study of small scale societies
in their natural state – hence ‘field’ came to denote a distinct social group which was to be studied
in its unique socio-cultural and geographical setting – methodological dualism (subject – object
 dichotomy) – the idea of ‘otherness’ remained remarkably central to early fieldwork researches –
Case study by Amory regarding African studies in USA – African American scholars were
discouraged from working in Africa – it was argued that they were “too close” to the field and would
not manage to be “objective”

Reflexive sociologists Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson questioned the conventional notion of
field based on the idea of ‘otherness’ – emphasized on the need for reconstruction of field and
field-work practices in the light of new developments – argued that decolonization,
industrialization, and most importantly globalization, accompanied by processes of diffusion and
acculturation, have challenged the traditional definition of field and the very idea of a clearly
demarcated space of ‘otherness’ – the idea of field, in terms of a homogeneous social group
with its unique culture and geographical surroundings, has come to be questioned – today
cultural heterogeneity is more common.

Further, ‘location’ of the field should not merely be seen in a geographical sense alone but also in
social and political terms – for example, the subaltern approach in sociology has significantly
contributed towards a better understanding of various socio-economic and political processes in
India which were until now largely studied from an elitist perspective

(Refer table on Pg.16- NS)

Sociology and Philosophy

● Philosophy attempts to study reality in totality.
Socio, too, began its journey with philosophical ambitions of developing grand
theories and seeking ultimate ends.
● Both came into existence during the same time period to explain the social crisis of
Europe in the 19th century.
● Durkheim thought that sociology has to necessarily contribute to a renewal of
philosophical questions which made him indulge in some epistemological
discussions, a branch of philosophy
● In ‘The Positive Philosophy’, Comte speaks of three stages of society- theological,
metaphysical and scientific.
● Sociology develops theories. Some of these theories become
instrumental for collective mobilization and social transformation
and thus become an ideology, a philosophy. Example: Marxism,
Feminism, and Critical Social Theory.

● Language, symbols, and relations are products of cultural ideology

and shared cultural philosophy- thus the need to study this by a
sociologist to understand society (example: mangalsutra is part of the
culture as per shared Indian philosophy. It will just be an ornament
carrying mercantile value for a westerner)

● Moral and social philosophy studies values. The subject matter of

sociology is human social behavior as guided by values, they study
values and human valuation as facts. Example - concepts of dharma,
individualism, liberalism, and alienation since they are both values and
facts.

● Giam Battista - philosophy of history should be studied for separating

society from political society
 ● Vierkandt- sociology is productive only when it has a philosophical
basis. Philosophical orientation gives meaning to otherwise what are
just facts and figures.

● Gunnar Myrdal - chaos cannot organize itself into cosmos (an orderly and
harmonious universe), we need viewpoints

Sociology and Common Sense

● CS- routine knowledge people have of their everyday world and activities based on
observations and experiences, or on ignorance, prejudice and mistaken
interpretation.
Alfred Schutz- CS is organized, typified stocks of taken-for-granted knowledge

Sociology- attempts to understand social phenomena using empiricism, objectivity,

and verificationism, and build cause-effect relationships.
●
CS- takes cues from what appears on Looks for inter- connections and root
surface causes which are non-apparent. (ex-
explanation of religion and suicide by
Durkheim). Berger-”The first wisdom of
Socio is that things are not what they
seem”

Uses conjectures and stereotypical Uses reason and logic. Socio

beliefs. CS views based on images
getting reinforced through tradition and
is highly value-laden
challenges traditions and stereotypes
(ex- traditional role of woman explained
through bio factors, ritualistic sense,
socio tells that these roles may have
other bases like Patriarchy) give ex of
Mead’s study below

CS- based upon assumptions Based on evidences as socio

knowledge based on thorough research
which might challenge CS beliefs

CS- personal knowledge; two people Socio knowledge aims at

may draw different conclusions from generalizations, theory building
same event based on their CS

Promotes status quoism. In Gramsci's Change oriented

view, the bourgeoisie develops a
hegemonic culture and propagates its
own values and norms so that they
become the "common sense" values of
all, and thus maintain the status quo.

CS- unreflective Socio knowledge- subjected to debates

and discourse
● Common sense is based on ‘naturalistic’ or individualistic
explanations. It fails to recognize that behavior patterns are not
biologically determined but rather reflect social conventions and
culture, learned through socialization and gives no importance to the
wider social forces that act on an individual.

Example: Naturalistic explanation of poverty- people are poor because they are lazy,
come from problematic families, lack proper budgeting, and have low IQ.
Socio explanation- contemporary poverty is caused by the structure of inequality in
class society and is experienced by those who suffer from a chronic irregularity of
work and low wages.

A naturalistic explanation of behavior rests on the assumptions that one can readily identify ‘natural’
(or sometimes ‘God-given’) reasons for behavior. For example, it is only natural, that two people
should fall in love, get married, live together, and raise a family. Such explanations are rejected as
inadequate by the sociologist. The individualistic explanation is rejected because it does not
recognize the importance of wider social forces acting on the individual that he or she cannot
control. The naturalistic explanation is rejected because it fails to recognize that behavior patterns
are not primarily biologically determined but rather reflect social conventions learned by individuals
as members of social groups, or, more generally, society.

● Similarities/complementarities:
❖ Folk wisdom is close to socio (eg- give a person a bad name and it will be
blamed for many more things, Howard Becker’s- Labelling theory of
deviance)
❖ CS is often related to social relationships, institutions- which act as
laboratories for socio studies
❖ Socio based on commonsensical knowledge, CS helps Socio in hypothesis
building
❖ CS helps Socio by challenging its conclusions, enriches the discipline

● Sociology has a body of concepts, methods and data, no matter how loosely
coordinated. This cannot be substituted by common sense.
●

Views- Both are the same Views- Both are different

Hegel- All philosophy gradually Durkheim rejected the role of CS in

develops from day-to-day socio analysis as considered CS
consciousness and daily lived perceptions as prejudices which can
experiences; every ordinary person is mar the scientific study of social world
also a social theorist

Scientific methods in Socio rejected by Gramsci identified CS thought with the

phenomenologists (Berger, T.
Luckmann, A. Schutz); no set criteria
for est. what people mean or are talking
about, they manage well enough with
this unsystematic BoK i.e CS hence
masses and theoretical thought with the
elite.
Gramsci- the role of CS i.e. in dominant
ideas about society and our place in it,
in producing cultural hegemony
 Socio follows a false path when it apes Gramsci’s thought contd.
the Sciences and should content itself
with everyday credentials of CS
knowledge

Post-modernists- Socio is no superior to

CS as there’s no such thing as
complete gospel and socio principles
are as uncertain as CS

Anthony Giddens- sociological

investigation often becomes CS. For eg-
socio investigations of marital
breakdowns have made people believe
that marriage is a risky business

● Margaret Mead’s study of New Guinea, ‘Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, revealed
the partiality of such common-sense interpretations of behavior pattern. Among the Apache, she found
very few ‘natural differences’ in men’s and women’s behavior with neither sex exhibiting aggression:
Women did the heavy carrying, and Men stayed at home with their wives during and after childbirth,
‘sharing’ the pain and strain. Among the Munduracco, both sexes were aggressive, children were
treated brutally by both parents and lovemaking was rather like a pitched battle. Among the Tchambuli,
yet further variation occurred: men adorned themselves, gossiped, and made things for trade, while
women selected their partners, made the sexual advances, did all the trade, and were the more
aggressive sex.

● Thus, a statement made on a common-sense basis may be just a guess, a hunch, or

a haphazard way of saying something, generally based on ignorance, bias, prejudice
or mistaken interpretation, though occasionally it may be wise, true, and a useful bit
of knowledge. At one time, common sense statements might have preserved folk
wisdom but today, the scientific method has become a common way of seeking truths
about our social world. Peter L Berger has called it a "debunking attitude towards
the world taken for granted."

CHAPTER-2 Sociology as a Science

Science

Comte-’social physics’ (Physics - scientific method help tide over the material crisis, so was thought
can help tide over social crisis as well - called it Social Physics), Spencer’s organismic analogy
(influence of bio sciences and Darwinism), Durkheim’s moral density and moral volume and
Weber’s ideal types- show obsession of early sociologists with science

Science is characterised by:

● Empiricism- observable, verifiable, quantifiable facts

 ● Objectivity and value neutrality in methods
● Self-corrective open to reflection and takes spatial and temporal variations into
consideration
● Rational explanation of truth
● Theoretical orientation and cumulativeness
● Universally applicable in time and space

❖ Giddens- socio is a scientific endeavour according to this definition,

as it involves systematic methods of empirical investigation, analysis
of data and assessment of theories in light of evidence and logical
argument.
❖ Socio considered as science by early sociologists due to its intersubjective
reliability (discipline with concepts having universal meaning irrespective of the
investigator, like meaning of family, religion)
❖ Great degree of objectivity in study of social phenomena (Weber- objectivity possible
through methods- verstehen, ideal types)
❖ Comte- there is a hierarchy of sciences in which sociology is at the top. And hence,
with progressively increasing time and efforts, it will achieve empiricism, value
neutrality, testability and universal theories and thus the status of a positive science.

Science has 4 preconditions (TOQI), so is Socio a science? Arguments in favour:

● Theoretical orientation- Socio has made theories valid in specific socio-cultural

context (Durkheim-religion, Parsons-social system claimed to be universal theory)
● Objectivity in research - not absolute, but training can help (Scientific methods used
by Durkheim, Weber)
● Quantifiability of phenomena- Social phenomena can be observed directly/indirectly
(Durkheim- social facts- external factors coercing person to think and behave in a
certain way; Weber- ideal types)
● IR

Practical limitations in developing Socio on the lines of natural sciences?

● Experimentation- core of NS, rarely possible in Socio (lack of controlled

environment)
● Human interactions cannot be quantified
● Objectivity impossible as it deals with human minds- difficult to decode (Weber-
there cannot be objective science of society since social actions must be understood
in terms of meanings that man attaches to them)
● Lack of IR- Marx- religion used by upper to subordinate lower, Durkheim- it is
integrative

Critique- Some scholars- even NS suffer from limitations of vagueness, unpredictability and
testability issues, lack of IR- had it been there, there would’ve been no innovation.

❖ Theodor Adorno- in the 17th and 18th century, science attempted to study nature, in
the 19th century it exploited nature, the 20th century saw the destructive power of
 science, and in the 21st century, science has been colonised by the state. So, we
should not celebrate science.
Science, can, thus be seen as:
● Methodology of studying a subject matter (can focus in individual
elements or behaviour of aggregate)
● Spirit- spirit of science is being critical/sceptical
● Purpose- to uncover the truth
● Consequence- to quench curiosity regarding the
unknown/undiscovered and solve problems
Thus, in these ways, Socio can be regarded as a ‘science in itself’ as told by
Weber

Karl Popper- Science is not a BoK, but a method of approaching & studying phenomena.
Socio also has key features of science- perspectives, method of enquiry, subject matter, etc
Idio v/s Nomo (Pg- 22 NS)

Scientific Method
Theodorson and Theodorson define scientific method as building of a
body of knowledge through observation, experimentation, generalization
and verification.
It has following elements:
1. Perspective and prob definition
2. Review of existing literature
3. Hypothesis formulation
4. Info gathering using research methods & building causal explanations
5. Interpretation of results, comparison and classification
6. Theory
(refer fig. 2.1- Pg.23 NS)
Rationale behind using SM in socio:
● Concrete shape to socio concepts to facilitate similar understanding by
difft. people
● Systematize socio as a BoK by giving it a concrete shape

Durkheim - social facts - science as amenable to sensory observations and exploratory generalisations
can be made using positive methods - 'Rules of Sociological Method' - comparative method: 1. within
a society (Married and Unmarried in same society) 2. different societies at a point of time (Spain Catholic,
Germany Protestant) 3. over a period of time (based on level of development) - comparative method is
also called indirect experiment - social facts should be treated as ‘things’ and one social fact must be
explained with another social fact preceding it - defines social facts as “ways of acting, thinking and
feeling, external to the individual, and endowed with a power of coercion by reason of which they control
him”.

For him explanation of social facts meant the study of functions and causes. The causes could be derived
through the use of the comparative method. Further, it follows the empiricist method, which is valid in the
natural sciences, biology in particular, observation, classification and explanation through the help of ‘laws’
arrived by means of the comparative method - example of social fact: you walk barefoot in garden is your
choice, barefoot in temple is social fact, not your choice, it is an external constraint. Because of habit,
socialisation and internalisation, we tend to experience social facts as natural and spontaneous

Social facts as things need to be distinguished from their individual manifestations. In fact, Durkheim held
that social facts 'acquire a body, a tangible form, and constitute a reality in their own right, quite distinct
from the individual facts which produce it'. For example, codified legal and moral rules, or articles of faith
wherein religious groups condense their beliefs; none of these can be found entirely reproduced in the
applications made of them by individuals. Yet, sociologically it is important to categorise their tangible,
crystallised aspects as social facts, not their individual manifestations.

Take, for instance, punishment as a social fact. For Durkheim, its cause is the intensity of the collective
sentiments that the crime offends. Likewise, its function is to maintain these very sentiments at the
same degree of intensity.

SM became popular with sociologists in 19th C when they were obsessed

with science, later it was contended that SM may be unsuitable for Socio
investigations as it deals with humans having consciousness who are not
governed by external stimuli as matter in nature is.
Criticism to SM:
● Just 1 method among many, glorification of 1 method bad for growth of
any knowledge
● It is based on Induction and promotes irrefutability
● Thomas Kuhn- Many disciplines have grown and matured even
without using it- History, Philosophy; SM researcher also makes
certain assumptions so no need of its glorification
● Paul Feyeraband- SM is form of ‘Epistemology Anarchism’
(science has spread anarchy, any discipline not following SM deemed
non-serious by it)
● Karl Popper in ‘Logic of Scientific Discovery’- science and SM face
prob of demarcation (what is science, what is not suffers from
subjective bias)
● Social life cannot be laboratorized (controlled experimentation impossible in Socio to
est cause-effect so no discovery of fixed laws)
Problem of understanding cause and effect- Durkheim found a correlation between rates of suicide and
seasons of the year. This may lead to conclusion that temperature affects the rates, but in reality, it is
because in spring and summer people are more active socially than in winter

● Adorno- Science suffocating, kills creativity; becomes new religion of blind faith
which negates human freedom reqd in social sciences

● Carl Jung - subjective things like happiness, beauty, pleasure, etc. cannot be
measured with methods of science, and so methodology should be discipline specific
 ● J F Feyerbend- SM restricts choice of researcher; socio research should be
liberating, not constraining

Positivism and its Critique

❖ Positivism is an approach of studying sociology which

aims at applying principles similar to those in natural
sciences.
❖ Founder- Comte (his conception of Positivism)- true
knowledge- thinking about physical, the social world as a
causal relationship b/w realities observable
directly/indirectly.
He says that sociologists shouldn't be concerned about
the internal meanings, motives, and emotions of
individuals as these mental states exist only in a person’s
consciousness- can’t be observed and hence, measured
objectively.

Comte in his ‘Positive Philosophy’ has described positivism in two ways:

1. Positivism as a doctrine (a philosophy)

2. Positivism as a method (research methodology)

He described the scope of new positive social science as - Social Dynamics and
Social Stats

❖ Durkheim has used Positivism as a research methodology in his ‘Suicide’. For

him, the subject matter of Socio-Social Fact- like institutions, belief systems,
customs, etc.- which exist over and above an individual’s consciousness

❖ Merton used positivism in his reference group behavior study

(collected data on American soldiers to show relative
deprivation)

❖ Sociology as a distinct discipline emerged in the 19th century as

a reaction to European modernity. At that time, Science was
celebrated in Europe. To establish infant sociology as a serious
discipline, it was necessary to model it along natural sciences.
Thus, Positivism helped in the very survival of sociology in its
early days.
❖ Positivism has the influence of Enlightenment ideologies:
● Saint Simon- called socio ‘Social Physics’, advocated
organismic analogy to study society
● Auguste Comte- introduced positivism in socio. Acc. to
him- sociological positivism- objects are real not by
material presence but in terms of their effects also.
 His books on Positivism- Course in Positive
Philosophy, System of Positive Polity

❖ Features:
● Emphasis on directly observable behavior; feelings, meanings-
unimportant
● Use of statistical data (Durkheim collected data on social facts- suicide
rates, membership of religions)
● External over internal (Durkheim- social facts)
● Discover cause-effect of a phenomenon by looking for correlation b/w
difft. social facts after careful analysis of the strength of correlation (use
multivariate analysis to overcome spurious correlations)

Counter- class and criminality study

● Use of SM (Durkheim used multivariate analysis in ‘suicide’)

● Focus on empiricism
● Theory formulation (laws of human behavior); the universality of laws
and principles
● Inductive approach (collect data- analyze it- develop theories- confirm
through repeated testing)
● Social knowledge should be testable
● It celebrates objectivity and value neutrality. It, therefore, separates
the knower from the known, subjectivity from objectivity, and fact from
value.

❖ Marxism is seen as a positivist approach as it sees human behavior as a

reaction to the stimulus of the economic infrastructure, and so is Functionalism
as it sees human behavior as a response to functional prerequisites. (both
believe that individual phenomena < social structures)

❖ Factors which cannot be observed, like meanings, feelings or

purposes should not be considered example: marriage and
procreation are observable facts, while underlying causes of
marriage are not observable, and hence are inconsequential

❖ Critique:
● Karl Popper- the origin of scientific theories matters
less, what makes them scientific is the ability to be
tested basis precise predictions of it (deductive
approach)
● Socio should be concerned with SU-OR
● Limited applicability of SM
Interpretivists like Weber-. Humans don’t behave,
they act. Important to observe and interpret subjective
states of mind. Verstehen and Ideal Types should be
used to supplement positivism, Dilthey- Impossible to
study human behavior with natural sciences methods
 ● Over emphasis on universalism. R K Merton- instead
use middle-ranged theories
● Phenomenologists- (Peter Berger- Positivism is not
concerned with sociology, but with making a science out of
sociology.
Reality is not fixed but is made, dismantled, and remade.
Humans make sense of reality by categorizing it, and
statistics are simply the product of the opinions of those
who produce them
● Social life exists in layers- Adorno
● Non-testable, contrary to claims
● Horkheimer criticized Positivism as a conservative
philosophy that focuses on the status quo. It engages in
objective anarchism. Truth is subject to changes and is
not always quantifiable
● Marxist and feminists also criticize it for the status quo and ignoring
conflict
● Habermas- Positivist method only talks about observable
and superficial knowledge. It loses sight of the actors and
reduces them to passive entities determined by natural
forces.
● Interactionists like Mead and Blumer see actions and
interactions as the driving force behind social actions
● Post-modernists like Derrida and Foucault claim that
reality can be studied in many ways and hence reject the
metanarratives and grand theories that Positivism aims to
build.
● Karl Popper - positivism kills the critical spirit of science
as it presumes hypothesis to be true and accordingly
analyzes data
● Biggest fallout- the emergence of scientific social theories

❖ Problems with Positivism:

1. There is no laboratory setting to control variables
2. Variables may change, as human behavior is not like
matter

One achievement of Positivism- freed social sciences from religion,

and speculative philosophy; base for systematic investigation of society.

Fact, Value and Objectivity

❖ Fact- Derived from the Latin word factum- something made/

done; an empirically verifiable observation agreed upon as real,
definite and incontrovertible
● Perceived similarly by everyone through audio-visual
senses
● Same in all situations
● Objective facts- the subject matter of natural sciences;
similar attempt made in Socio (Durkheim’s social facts,
mention its criticism from NS)
 ● Theory- systematisation of facts, relations expressed into
set of general statements which are causal relations b/w
observable facts

❖ Values- socially accepted standards of desirability/undesirability;

confirmatory bias - judgment in respect to a specific ideology,
medium of social control
● Values are at 3 levels - individual, community, societal
● Early sociologists- keep indi values aside while doing
socio research as it affects objective evaluation
● Facts vs value debate (NS- Pg. 29)

● Positivists claim that Fact and Value are not only

different but also absolutely separable entities and
value should be completely excluded from the
sociological inquiry. Values distort reality and produce
biased results. If a conclusion is based on fact, it is
completely true, else it is completely false.

● Both Weber and Hillary Putnam argue that theory

selection or choice of perspective is always valuational -
what to study and what angle to study, both are
valuational.

● Value laden theory - Collection of data, its analysis,

segregation of useful data from useless data, and arriving
at a conclusion are all valuational. The conclusion must be
plausible, and plausibility means acceptability, which is
arrived at by peer evaluation which is also a valuational
choice.

● Mannheim-value-free research is a desirable goal

towards which social scientists can strive without any
necessary expectations of actually attaining it.

❖ Objectivity- an approach in which the investigator’s attitude

is detached, unprejudiced, value-neutral; it pre-supposes
predictability of outcome
● Is one of the pillars of SM & core of Positivism
➢ Durkheim in ‘Rules of Sociological
Methods’- social facts must be treated as
things and all preconceived notions about
them must be abandoned
➢ Radcliff Brown urges the social scientist to
transcend his ethnocentric and egocentric
biases while carrying out research
● How to achieve objectivity?
 ➢ Comte suggested positivism and restricting
the study to macro realities
➢ Durkheim preferred inductive methodology
and statistical techniques as stated in ‘Rules
of Sociological Methods’
➢ Weber claims Verstehen and Ideal Types can
be used to ensure objectivity

● Objectivity in social research can be improved by

(NS-Pg. 30)
● Difficulties in obtaining objectivity in difft. stages of
socio investigation (fig 2.6- NS Pg. 30)
1. Choice of topic/prob (Weber’s view- very
impt)
2. Collection of facts
3. Representation/interpretation of facts
4. Formulation of theories
5. Choice of testing tools
● Peter Berger - facts do not speak for themselves, they speak through the
mouth of the researcher who is value-laden

❖ Why complete objectivity is neither desirable nor attainable?

● Ideological biases have an impact on social research
as seen from the study of a Tepostalan village in
Mexico. Robert Redfield studied it from a
functionalist perspective and concluded that total
harmony exists between various groups, while Oscar
Lewis studied this village at almost the same time
from a Marxist perspective, and found that the society
was conflict-ridden. Durkheim gave a functional
theory of religion, while Marx gave a conflict one.
● Pauline V Young says that interviewing as a
technique of data collection is often subjective as it
depends on the rapport built between the researcher
and the subjects.
● Mills and Wordsworth state that some standpoint or
value judgment is necessary for solving social problems.
Our socialization is based on values that direct our
thinking and action. Social sciences are normative and
hence objectivity is unattainable.
● Objectivity has been found to be neither possible nor
desirable. Complete objectivity remains an elusive
goal and a researcher must make his value
preference or ideological biases clear in the research
monograph. Methodological pluralism may help in
reducing subjectivity.
 ❖ Why should your research be objective but not
necessarily value-neutral? (otherwise no solution to the
problem)- NS Pg. 31
● CW Mills, Alvin Gouldner, David Horowitz have advocated that sociology must
have a commitment to certain basic human values and sociologists must be ready
to defend human freedom and the pursuit of reason. Value neutrality is not
desirable as it reduces sociologists to the status of mere spectators and can play
no role in social welfare

❖ But even if Obj. is difficult to achieve- shouldn’t be discarded

by investigators. Hammersley- fallibility of knowledge is not
an excuse to abandon the search for knowledge

Non-Positivist Methodologies

❖ Positivists' assumptions were questioned by idealists who

believed in the power of ideas; NP tried to gauge what goes
in the mind of man and how it affects society (such ideas
prevalent even in 18th C- German idealist school- give
Hegel’s view)
❖ Dilthey (first to turn Positivism on its head)- - reality should
be understood in three different ways - experience,
expression (opinion of others) and comprehension
(interpreting information).
❖ Immanuel Kant - ideas can change society. Society is highly
subjective, so the emphasis should be on interpretation, as
explanation is not possible.
❖ Simmel - the reality is objective, but knowledge about reality is
subjective. Cause consequence relationship is not constant in
behavioral science. It depends on mood, intentions, and
situations.
❖ Non-positivist methodologies:
● GH Mead - symbolic interactionism
● Weber- Interpretivist socio
● Alfred Schutz and Peter Berger - Phenomenology
● Garfinkel - Ethnomethodology

❖ Elements common to these methodologies:

● Study internal processes
● Emphasis on qualitative methods
● Understanding of social reality, not a prediction of
events
● No generalized universal theories
● Impossibility of total objectivity

❖ Critique:
● Vague methods like Verstehen, depend on the ability of the researcher,
time-consuming and costly, contradictory explanations example- various
 Ideal Types for the same phenomenon, reliability and validity cannot be
achieved.
● Postmodernists believe that no knowledge is untrue
and voices of diverse groups should be encouraged and
metanarratives should be discarded.
(Refer table on Pg. 32 NS)
(Mention critique of individual methods)

Interpretivist Sociology (voluntarist approach)

❖ Umbrella term for streams- Phenomenology, Ethnomethodology,

Symbolic Interactionism
❖ Used for the 1st time by Weber in his ‘Methodology of the
Social Sciences’
❖ Max Weber- the observer has to try to understand the meaning of social
action and institutions for the people involved.
❖ Social phenomena are metaphysically distinguishable from
natural phenomena because they are intentional — they depend
on the meaningful actions of individuals.
❖ As per this approach, task of Socio- interpretation of meanings
attached by individuals to their actions and understanding those
meanings in explanation of cause-effect.
❖ Goal of social inquiry- provide interpretations of human conduct within the
context of culturally specific meaningful arrangements
Eg- Max Weber's treatment of the relation between capitalism
and the Protestant ethic. Weber attempts to identify the
elements of western European culture that shaped human
action in this environment in such a way as to produce
capitalism
❖ Basis of approach- individual has voluntary will, external
influence cannot explain his thoughts
❖ The researcher gets absorbed in the group which they are
studying, in order to interpret their interaction
❖ Many interpretive sociologists- there’s little chance of
discovering underlying meanings of social actions from
quantitative methods- hence, advocate qualitative methods
● Reject natural science methodologies to study social
action- unlike matter, people have consciousness
● Meanings don’t have independent existence of social
actors- constructed, reconstructed by actors in course of
interactions

❖ Causal explanations of human behaviour- impossible-

understand subjective state of individuals
● Point of divergence among non-positivists:
➢ Weber regards understanding meanings as
necessary to est causal relationships
➢ Phenomenologists- understanding is socio
research’s end product & reject possibility of
producing causal explanations
 ❖ Weber proposed SMs for - Verstehen, Ideal type & Comparative
methods
❖ Doyens- George Simmel (German), Chicago school led by
Louis Firth, Robert Park, Mead etc.

Phenomenology (group of perspectives, study of phenomena)

❖ Angie Titchen & Dawn Hobson- it’s the study of lived human
phenomena within everyday social contexts in which the
phenomena occur from the perspective of those experiencing it.
Phenomena comprise anything that human beings
live/experience.

❖ Social phenomenology- European branch of sociology which aims

to reveal what role human awareness plays in the production of
social action, social situations and social worlds.
❖ Pheno- ex of a socio approach that sees the social world &
knowledge about it, as a social construction
❖ Subject matter of NS v/s SS- difft., hence method of NS can’t be
applied on SS
❖ Meanings- no independent existence, cons & recons by actors
in course of social interaction; Phenomenologists- social world
full of meanings, no objective reality beyond meaning of
individual
● View social objects as phenomenon which changes according
to perception of people and are contextual - subjective
understanding of subjective reality
Ex- Cicourel’s study of juvenile justice (H&H- Pg. 886, 993)
❖ Alfred Schutz’s - ‘Phenomenology of the Social World’
❖ Life world- intersubjective world where people create social
reality and are constrained by pre-existing socio-cultural
structures of predecessors

❖ Its emphasis is on internal workings of human mind and the way

humans classify and make sense of the world around them

❖ is not concerned with causal explanation of human behavior

● Phenomenologists believe that it is impossible to
produce factual data and that it is impossible to check
causal explanations. The most that sociologists can do
is to understand meanings that individuals attach to
certain phenomena.

❖ Humans come in contact with the outside world only through

their senses. If humans took their sense experience at face
value, they would be confronted with an unintelligible mass of
impressions. To overcome this problem, humans organize the
world around them into phenomena. They classify things that
appear to have common characteristics, example: animate and
 inanimate. Such a classification is entirely a product of the
human mind and cannot be evaluated in terms of true or false.

❖ Typifications (NS)

❖ Phenomenology is used in two basic ways in sociology:

1. To theorize about substantive social problems
2. To enhance the adequacy of sociological research methods
❖ Systematised by Berger and Luckmann in ‘The Social
Construction of Reality’

❖ To decipher phenomena- sociologists must immerse into areas of life they are
investigating rather than fitting data into predefined categories

❖ Criticism:
1. Faded due to subjective nature
2. Inability to deliver concrete concepts
3. Contemporary sociologists- it’s nothing more than CS
4. Narrow and speculative
5. Has reduced every phenomena into unique phenomena so replication
and comparative analysis are impossible
6. Just as there’s no validity of the facts/data acc to
phenomenologists, there is no way of checking the validity of the
accounts of how actors produced those stats advanced by pheno
sociologists.

Symbolic Interactionism

❖ Term coined by Herbert Blumer, Mead’s student

❖ Mead’s understanding of human behaviour- it’s governed by the internal
processes by which man interprets the world around him and gives meaning to
his life- these meanings are reinforced and modified during interpersonal
interactions
❖ Interactions, acc to Mead, possible through some symbols- significant symbols
like language & gestures
❖ Joel M Charon in ‘Symbolic Interactionism: An Intro, An Interpretation, An
Integration’ highlights 5 basic assumptions of SI:
● Humans are social & thinking beings
● They perceive their environment subjectively
● Causes of their actions lie in the present, not in the past
● They are not passive to their environment

❖ Basic principles:
● Humans, unlike animals,- capacity for thought
● Capacity shaped by social interactions
● In SI- people learn meanings, symbols that help in exercising thinking
capacity
● Meanings & symbols- allow human action and interaction
 ● People able to modify meanings & symbols used in action & interaction
on the basis of interpretation of situation
● Such modifications possible due to people’s ability to interact with
themselves
● Groups & societies- intertwined patterns of action & interaction

❖ Capacity for thought:

● Human’s thinking ability- differentiates symbolic interactionism (SI) from
its behaviourist roots
● Thinking ability- embedded in the mind but mind is somewhat different for
SI
★ Mind differs from physiological brain
★ It’s not a thing or a physical structure but a continuing process
★ Mind related to every other aspect of SI- socialization, meanings,
symbols, the self, interaction, even society

❖ Thinking and interaction:

● Thinking capacity must be shaped and refined in the process of social
interaction- leads socio to focus on specific form of social interaction-
Socialization
★ Conventional sociologists- it’s a process by which people learn
the things needed to survive in a society (culture, role
expectations)
★ SI- it’s a dynamic process that develops ability to think in people;
not 1-way process for receiving info but a dynamic one in which
actor shapes & adapts the info to his/her needs

● SIs- interested in Interaction in general

★ Is the process in which ability to think is both developed and
expressed
★ Not all interactions require thinking; two forms:
1. Nonsymbolic- Mead’s gestures
2. Symbolic- requires mental processes
● Importance of thinking to SIs reflected in their views on- objects
★ Blumer- 3 types of objects:
1. Physical
2. Social
3. Abstract
★ Different objects- difft. Meanings for difft. Individuals
★ Individuals learn meaning of objects through- socialization

❖ Learning meanings and symbols:

● Meanings stem not from solitary mental processes but from interactions
● Symbols- used by people to communicate something about themselves
 ★ Enable people to deal with material and social world through
naming, categorization, remembrance of encountered objects
★ Improve people’s ability to perceive the environment
★ Improve thinking ability
★ Increase problem-solving ability
★ Allows actors to transcend time, space, even their own selves
★ Allow imagination of metaphysical reality
★ Stop enslavement of people by environment
● Language- vast system of symbols, words are symbols as they stand for
something, they make all other symbols possible
● Charon- because of symbols, humans do not react passively to a reality
that imposes itself but actively create and recreate the world acted in

❖ Action and Interaction:

● Covert v/s overt behaviour
● Meanings and symbols give social action and interaction distinctive
characteristic
● Social action-acting with others in mind
● Social interaction- symbolical communication of meaning to others
involved
❖ Making Choices- due to ability to handle meanings and symbols-
people capable of making choices in actions they undertake; they
need not accepts meanings, symbols imposed on them from
outside; actors have autonomy
❖ The self- important to SIs (looking glass of C H Cooley- Pg. 35
NS, Pg. 361 R)
❖ Groups and societies- SIs are critical of focus on macro
structures (Pg. 370-371 R)

❖ Criticism:
● Given up on SM. Eugene Weinstein and Judith Tanur-
just becuase the contents of consciousness are
qualitative, does not mean that their exterior expression
cannot be codified, classified, even counted.
● Vagueness of Meadian concepts- mind, self, I, me
● Confusing and imprecise concepts- no basis for theory
and research, cause operationalization issues and
testability rendered impossible
● Micro focus

William Skidmore comments, the interactionists largely fail to explain ‘why

people consistently choose to act in given ways in certain situations, instead of
in all the other ways they might possibly have acted’. In stressing the flexibility
and freedom of human action the interactionists tend to downplay the
constraints on action. In Skidmore’s view this is due to the fact that
‘interactionism consistently fails to give an account of social structure’. In other
words it fails to adequately explain how standardized normative behavior
comes about and why members of society are motivated to act in terms of
social norms.
 ● Inadequately microscopic- ignores emotions and
unconsciousness, psychological factors (needs,
intentions, aspirations) that might impel the actor

● Marxists have argued that the meanings which operate in face to face
interaction situations are largely the product of class relationships. From this
viewpoint, interactionists have failed to explain the most significant thing about
meanings: the source of their origin.

● Leon Shaskolsky has argued that interactionism is largely a

reflection of the cultural ideals of American society. He claims
that ‘Symbolic interactionism has its roots deeply embedded in
the cultural environment of American life, and its interpretation of
society is, in a sense, a “looking glass” image of what that
society purports to be’. Thus the emphasis on liberty, freedom
and individuality in interactionism can be seen in part as a
reflection of America’s view of itself. Shaskolsky argues that this
helps to explain why the interactionists perspective finds less
support in Europe since there is a greater awareness in
European societies of the constraints of power and class
domination. By reflecting American ideals, Shaskolsky argues
that interactionism has failed to face up to and take account of
the harsher realities of social life
(Application of SI by Arlie Hochschild in ‘The Managed Heart’ Pg. 37 NS)

Ethnomethodology

❖ Literal meaning- lay methods used by people on daily basis to accomplish

everyday lives
❖ The study of the body of common sense knowledge and the range of
procedures & considerations by means of which the ordinary members of
society make sense of, find their way about in, & act on the circumstances
in which they find themselves.
❖ Proposed by Harold Garfinkel, systematised in his publication- ‘Studies in
Ethnomethodology’
❖ Rejects objective view of reality and social order starting from society and not
individual
❖ Garfinkel’s- social facts vs Durkheim’s
❖ 2 central ideas to Ethnomethodology:
● Indexicality- sense of an object/phenomena- context specific
● Reflexivity- our sense of order is a result of conversational process, is
created in talk; order is creation of individuals
❖ Seeing actors constrained by social structures and institutions w/o being able to
exercise independent judgement- treating actors like judgemental/cultural
dopes
❖ Micro v/s macro debate
❖ Accounts- ways in which actors explain specific situations, Accounting- process
of offering accounts by people to make sense of the world; one of the reasons
why Ethnomethodologists analyse conversations (Conversation Analysis) (Pg.
39, NS; Pg. 384-385, 388, Ritzer)
❖ Study of Institutional settings (Pg. 384, Ritzer)
❖ Criticism of Traditional Socio:
 ●
Traditional sociologists- impose their sense of social reality on the social
world
● Description of a social setting taken at its descriptive value than just 1
conception of it
● Confusing topic and resource (Pg. 400-401, Ritzer)
❖ Strains in Ethnomethodology:
● Focus on trivial matters and ignoring crucial issues confronting society
today
● Focus on structural properties of talk; motives and internal motivations for
actions ignored
● micro -macro linkage
● Losing sight of original radical reflexivity, lost sight of analyzing their own
work
● Uneasiness between ethnomethodology and conversation analysis

CHAPTER-3 Research Methods and Analysis

❖ Method is a tool or a technique used to collect data

❖ Methodology- both the detailed research methods through which data are
collected and the more general philosophies upon which the collection and
analysis of data are based. Issues of this type- epistemology

‘Scientific’ quantitative methodology

❖ Adopts the methods of natural sciences in studying the social world.

❖ Earliest attempt to use such methods in sociology- positivism

A. Positivism

Comte- scientific knowledge about society could be accumulated and used to

improve human existence so that society could progress and run rationally.

Durkheim advocated a similar methodology and ‘Suicide’- seen as a model of

positvist research

1. Social Facts-
● Scientific study of society should be confined to collecting info
about objectively observable phenomena
● No concern to be given to internal meanings, motives, feelings
etc.- mental states existing only within person’s consciousness-
can’t be measured objectively
● Durkheim- study social facts, existing over & above individual’s
consciousness constraining human behaviour

2. Statistical data-
● Positivists- objective classification of social world possible-
possible to count sets of observable facts and produce stats (ex-
Durkheim- collected data on SF- suicide rate & membership of
difft religions)
 3. Correlation-
● Looking for correlation b/w difft SF (tendency of finding 2 things
together and referring to strength of relationship b/w them)
● Durkhei
● ound correlation b/w a religion ( Protestantism) and high suicide
rate

4. Causation-
● Search for causal connections (result of strong correlation b/w 2
or more types of social phenomena); careful analysis is reqd.
before reaching any such conclusion (ex- class & criminality)

5. Multivariate analysis-
● Devised by Durkheim to overcome the issue of spurious
correlation
● Involves isolating the effect of a particular independent variable
upon the dependent one (Ex- Crime- dependent variable, gender-
an independent variable)

6. Laws of human behaviour-

● Multivariate analysis- can est. causal connections b/w 2 or more
variables- if checked in variety of contexts - ultimate goal of
positivism attained i.e. a law of human behaviour (ex- Durkheim’s
suicide theory & Comte’s TMP stages of society)

This is known as inductive methodology. However, while positivism has

influenced many, the inductive method has not been accepted by all. Deductive
approach is an alternative to it

B. Falsification and deduction

Karl Popper in supports this methodology. It

reverses the process of induction. Falsification starts with a theory and tests it
against the evidence, rather than developing a theory as a result of examining the
data.

● Scientists should start with a hypothesis and on its basis, it should be possible to
deduce predictions about the future (ex- Newton’s law of gravity). It includes both
interpolation and extrapolation
● The hypothesis can originate even from common sense knowledge, dreams,
inspiration etc.
 ● What makes the theories scientific is their ability to be tested by making precise
predictions on the basis of the theory.
● It’s never possible to produce laws that will necessarily be found to be true for all
time, a researcher should constantly try to find evidence that disproves his
theories.

C. The lab experiment and sociology

● Reason for being used by scientists- enables testing of precise predictions
● Labs- controlled environments wherein independent variables can be
manipulated by the researcher, achieved through control which facilitates
experiment’s comparison
● Lab experiment- facilitates replication
● Critique:
★ Labs- unnatural situations; results lack external validity
★ Ethical issues; Payne and Payne recommend getting prior informed
consent
★ Manipulation of all independent variables not possible (ex- changing
gender not possible in studying work experiences of both)- pointed out by
Alan Bryman
★ Impractical for many subjects of interest
★ Bandura examined the effects on children of viewing media images of
violence. However, critics have pointed that such an unnatural experiment
does not give any indication of whether the short-term effects of viewing
violence would be repeated in the long term, or in real social settings

D. Field experiments
● Carried outside a lab
● involve intervening in the social world in such a way that hypotheses can be
tested by isolating particular variables.
● Sissons observed reactions of members of public when asked for directions by
an actor
● Moving to opportunity project’s example
● It’s an experimental situation occurring w/out the intervention of researcher
● Critique:
★ Not possible to control variables as closely as in a lab
★ Hawthorne effect
★ Ethical issues may arise if the subjects are kept unaware of experiment to
avoid above effect
★ Confined to small-scale studies over a small period of time.

E. The comparative method

● Victor Jupp- variety of research techniques make use of this method:
★ content analysis- comparison of documents
★ Historical analysis - comparison of time periods
★ Analysis of official statistics - comparison of areas,
groups or time periods in terms of social indicators
 ● data used- can come from primary or secondary sources

● overcomes some of the problems involved in experimentation like:

★ Less ethical issues- as no interference in social world
★ less likely to affect the behavior of those being studied, as data coming
from ‘natural situations’
★ Allows the researcher to study the causes of large-scale social changes
over long periods of time (facilitates historical developments study of
society)

● Used by major thinkers:

★ Marx compared a wide variety of societies to develop his theory of social
change and stages of society.

★ Durkheim used the method in his study of DoL and the change from
mechanical to organic solidarity

Durkheim - same society different sections in France, different societies

at a point of time Germany and Spain, comparison over a period of time -
Suicide - This comparison among two religions in the same region i.e., in
the, same economy, amounts to an experimental situation, discovered by
the social scientist, though not created by him in the laboratory. Therefore
Durkheim calls for such use of comparative method an indirect
experiment

★ In PESC, Weber compared early capitalist countries in the West with

China and India to show a correlation between capitalism and Calvinism
● Critique:

Interpretive and qualitative methodology

❖ Claim- either ‘scientific’ approaches are inadequate or inappropriate in a subject

dealing with human behaviour- so qualitative methods can either be used to
supplement or replace them

The Interpretive approach

 ❖ Sociologists who take an interpretive approach are strongest advocates of
qualitative data. They argue that the causal explanation of human behavior is
impossible without some understanding of the subjective states of the individuals
concerned

Social action approach of Max Weber

● Sociologists must interpret the meanings given to actions by actors

● Understanding motives facilitated by Verstehen (imagining yourself in the
position of person whose behaviour you’re seeking to explain)

Example: In PESC, one of Weber’s main concerns- to

interpret the beliefs and motives of the early Calvinists.

● Wasn’t just concerned with meanings/motives, he was interested in

causality

Example: In PESC, he used comparative method to compare

the characteristics of early capitalist countries & tech
advanced oriental societies, hence isolating the ‘ascetic’
protestantism as a variable contributing to the rise of
capitalism

Symbolic Interactionism

● They tend to believe that statistical data does not provide any great
insight into human behavior.

● Human behaviour seen as governed largely by internal processes by

which people interpret the world and give meaning to own lives

● Individuals possess a self-concept- image of themselves, which is built

up, reinforced or modified in the process of interaction with other
members of society

● The responses of others to an individual may make it

impossible for him or her to sustain a particular
self-concept; the self-concept will change, and in turn
the behavior of the individual will alter accordingly.
Thus, interactionists have tried to show how labelling
people as deviant or educational successes or failures,
can produce self-fulfilling prophecies.

● Herbert Blumer- rejects simplistic attempts to establish causal

relationships that characterize positivist methodology; instead of viewing
social reality from an actor’s perspective, positivists have attempted to
force it into predefined categories
 Instead, researcher must take the role of the acting unit whose behaviour
he is studying

Phenomenology

● Phenomenology is an anti-positivist, constructionist perspective which

was first proposed by Edmund Husserl and then developed along
sociological lines by Alfred Schutz

● It’s a study of lived, human phenomena within everyday social contexts in

which the phenomena occur from the perspective of those experiencing
them

● Reject possibility of producing causal explanations of human behaviour

● ‘Suicide’ study by Durkheim is criticized by phenomenologists as it was

based on the official statistics of suicide, which they believe are nothing
more than the interpretations of the coroner or police officials of what is
seen to be an unnatural death.

● Human beings make sense of world by imposing meanings &

classifications upon it which make up social reality- there’s no objective
reality beyond these subjective meanings

● Phenomenology is used in two ways in sociology:

1. to theorize about substantive sociological problems and
2. to enhance the adequacy of sociological research methods

● In Cicourel’s study of juvenile justice, he did not find classification of

someone as ‘delinquent’ to be objective, it was based on stereotypes held
by the police officials- to phenomenologists, all stats are social products
reflecting meanings of those who created them

From a phenomenological perspective, the job of a sociologist is to simply

understand these meanings from which social reality is constructed. Also,
there is no way of choosing between different systems of classification
and seeing one as superior to another. Hence, data cannot be used to try
to establish correlations and causal relationships.

● Critique- phenomenology has reduced every social action into a unique

phenomenon. Thus, there is no possibility of replicability or comparative
analysis

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

❖ Quantitative methods
● Guided by positivism in early years due to orientation towards NS
 ● Scientific, systematic investigation of quantitative properties of a
phenomena
● Durkheim- early pioneer (study of ‘suicide’)
● Measurement process- central to this method
● Method types- stats, multivariate analysis, surveys, comparative methods,
sampling etc
● Drawbacks:
★ Questions with simple answers can be asked; unusable for
non-observable attributes
★ Layman has no way of benefitting from questioner’s observations
of how ques. is answered (which logic/argument was used in
answering)
★ Method becomes difficult as population size increases

❖ Qualitative methods
● Emerged as a reaction to Quantitative Methods- unsuitable for
understanding social reality
● Help in discovering underlying meanings, motives, patterns etc.
● Weber (pioneer of Interpretivist approach)- verstehen and ideal types;
Mead- SI
● Assumptio behind use- human beings have subjective consciousness- a
non-measurable attribute
● Method types- observation, case studies, focus group discussion,etc.
● Drawbacks:
★ Requires expertise
★ Trained investigator
★ Difficult to use in a large sample

❖ Debate of Quantitative v/s Qualitative methodology

● Pawson- distinction b/w positivism & phenomenology has sometimes
been exaggerated

● Even proponents of one methodology haven’t completely stuck to it rigidly

(Durkheim dealt with subjective states of individuals in ‘Suicide’;
Cicourel who criticised quantiative methods used stats in study of
juvenile justice; Payne- qualitative techniques often draw on some of the
quantitative techniques, ex- time spent in saying during conversational
analysis by ethnomethodologists)

● Many sociologists now advocate methodological pluralism

Gunnar Myrdal's Advice on Combining Quantitative and Qualitative

Researches - The ideal community study should start out from a careful
statistical analysis of vital, social, and economic data concerning the
individuals and families making up the community being studied. The less
measurable data on attitudes, cultural traits, behaviour patterns in which
social stratification is expressed, and the 'feeling' of social status or
toward social status on the part of members of the various groups, should
 then be observed and the results integrated into the framework of
statistical knowledge

Ramkrishna Mukherjee's View on Quantitative and Qualitative Research

- Quality-Quantity is not a dichotomy. There is no 'either/ or' between
them. Quality refers to only 'distances' in variations, which are not known
to us and, therefore, cannot be measured. Our job is to find out what
these 'distances' are and how to measure them. This distance is the
variation between entities we are concerned with: It may be individuals; it
may be anything

Alan Bryman points out, quantitative data tends to produce a static

picture which allows researchers to examine and discover overall
structures and patterns in a society as a whole, while qualitative data
allows a richer and deeper understanding of the process of change in
social life, and the meanings and motives at the level of the actors

Example: In her study of the Unification Church, Eileen Barker used

participant observation, questionnaires and in-depth interviews. This
allowed her to see how the Church as a whole was organized and also
how it influenced the day to day actions and interactions of its members

● Critical social science (feminism) & postmodern socio- distinct

perspectives on methodology fitting in neither camp

(Triangulation- Pg. 46 box- NS)

Techniques of Data Collection

❖ Techniques depend on factors like- requirement of qualitative or quantitative data

or primary/secondary data; approach- Positivist/Non- Positivist
❖ Secondary data- already available (govt surveys, reports etc. by other
researchers etc.), provide easy ref- when time’s less & TG is same (ex- Durkheim
used police station data in suicide study)

Issues with such data- collected for a difft purpose, older data, maybe prone to
errors which researcher is unaware of

❖ Ethnography, Participant Observation and Field Study

● Ethnography:
★ Judy Payne- production of highly detailed accounts of how
people in social settings lead their lives, based on systematic &
long-term observation of, & conversation with, informants
★ Study of life of subjects in research
★ Uses participant observation & field studies as investigation tools
● Observation:
★ Pauline V Young- it is a systematic viewing along with the
consideration of seen phenomena
★ Rationale for use- social investigator must become part of social
phenomena he/she wishes to understand
★ Also called scientific observation- observation should be
scientific for reliable results
★ Involves:
➔ Direct observation of subjects reaction in a lab
(laboratory observation)
➔ Direct observation of subjects reaction in a natural setting
(naturalistic observation)

★ Report writing- preferred for systematic/scientific observation as

depending on memory can be unreliable; can’t write in an
emotionally charged environment, makes subject conscious
(made easier with audio/video recorders)

★ Classified into 3 types based on degree of observer’s

participation
I. Participant Observation-
➔ Goal- learn about whole way of life of
community/target group that’s why researcher
joins everyday activity of the subject
➔ High degree of observer’s acceptability needed for
reliable results
➔ Applications- Cicourel’s study of juvenile justice,
William Whyte’s study of an Italian American
gangster in Boston
➔ Became popular in India even before
independence, application- village studies (govt
interested in developing rural India)- done by
Majumdar, S C Dube, Srinivas
➔ Advantages- detailed, in-depth, holistic view of
events about a social phenomena / institution;
avoidance of preconceived notions & shape
research with arrival of new info; correction of
initial mistake/biased impressions; track changes
and see impact of difft situations/contexts
➔ Weaknesses- validity (no testable as results
based on observations), no replication possible,
sympathy with subject/TG, gaining trust- difficult,
observer may get accustomed to behaviour of TG
making noting impt details difficult ,
time-consuming, narrow in scope- focus area is
small
➔ To counter above, dialogic format prescribed

II. Quasi Participant Observation-

➔ Based on principle of PO, but degree of
involvement- less
➔ Uses best of both- PO & non- PO

III. Non- Participant Observation-

➔ Detached observation
 ➔ Least bias
➔ Facilitates proper & immediate recording of the
incidents
➔ Critique- researcher’s ability to understand the
experiences of the culture may be inhibited if they
observe w/out participating
❖ Focus Group Technique
● Mainly used for Non- Positivistic research
● Brings together a group of people to have an extensive, free flowing
discussion on their opinions/experiences on an issue
● Popularised in Socio by Robert Merton
● Researcher may act like a moderator to direct discussion in a desired
direction of research
● Objectives of study clearly defined but not the structure of discussion
pattern
● Due to interactive nature, any misunderstanding can be clarified & validity
of research findings increased
● Fran Tonkiss- internet has facilitated this technique via online research
chat rooms
● Critique- if moderator becomes too active, distract the group to respond
as per his likings or participants may restrain themselves

❖ Case Study
● Complete & detailed account of a single social phenomena
● Inspired from legal & mgmt case studies
● Offers a holistic treatment of subject
● Lacks external validity as study of one subject
● Tim May- case studies emphasis on contextual nature of social life

● Robert K. Yin distinguished between five types of case studies:

1. The critical case, where a particular example is useful for testing
a hypothesis. Example: a study of a religious cult examining how
its members reacted when the world failed to end on the day
predicted by their leader
2. The extreme or unique case, where there is only one known
example of something. Example: Margaret Mead’s research on
gender relations in Samoa, Gough’s study of family structures of
the Nair society
3. The revelatory case, where the researcher can gain access to an
aspect of social life which was previously inaccessible. Ex: Eliot
Liebow’s research into unemployed black people in the USA in
1960s
4. The longitudinal case provides a chance to study the case at
two or more points in time, making it possible to see the effects of
social change. Example: Beverly Skegg’s study of 83 working
class women in England over a period of 12 years
5. The representative or typical case or exemplifying case which
illustrates a common social phenomenon
 ● Case studies are not representative and instead attempt to arrive at a
comprehensive understanding of the group under study. They can be
used to falsify a general theory, produce typologies (set of categories
defining types of a social phenomenon) and generate new hypotheses
which can then be tested in later studies

● Situations appropriate for this method- incidents like riots, disasters,

conflicts as they require in-depth study
● Limitation- poor scope of generalisation, Bryman suggests conducting a
number of case studies of the same type of phenomenon, preferably by
the same researcher and at the same time period, to improve validity.

❖ Visual Analysis
● Visual analysis can involve the examination of different types of
secondary sources, from the mass media to life documents and historical
sources
● Suki Ali divides visual material into moving images (like films and TV
programmes) and still images (like paintings and photos).
● Films have been studied to examine issues such as the stereotyping of
particular groups, racism, violence, etc. Still images have also been used
in similar studies, example: advertising copies have been studied in
relation to the links between consumption and identification.

●Methods that can be used to study visual images are:

★ Content analysis - extensively used to examine the place of
women in the society, how African Americans are depicted in
films, art or television shows
★ Semiotic analysis - interpretation of signs through analyzing how
they interrelate with other images. Example: semiotic analysis of
the 1985 cover of the National Geographic magazine,
popularly dubbed as the ‘Afghan girl’ has been widely
discussed- it shows an adolescent girl in a refugee camp, head
loosely covered with a red scarf, looking intensely at the camera
& the accompanying text reads- “Along Afghanistan’s War-torn
Frontier”, the photo signifies- horrors of war & the plight of the
most vulnerable sections, women and children in the then
ongoing Soviet - Afghan war.
★ Discourse analysis - studying visual sources in relation to
dominant discourses in the society
★ Photo elicitation - using visual sources to facilitate other
research methods, example: as a prompt in interviews
❖ Content Analysis
● Often used in interpretative socio research
● Earl R Babbie- the study of recorded human communications, such as
books, websites, paintings & laws
● Generally applied to analysis of written communication or visual material,
but can be used for interviews- analysis of answers to open-ended
questions in survey research
 ● Mass media reports can also be used to analyze the ideologies of those
who produce them

● Ray Pawson identifies four approaches to carry out content analysis:

1. Formal content analysis - here the emphasis is on objectivity
and reliability. A systematic sample of texts is collected for study,
a classification system is devised to identify different features of
these texts, and these features are then counted. The simplest
form of analysis involves a word count. Example: words used by
the two presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,
in the television debates during the 2016 US election campaign.
The most frequently used words were then analyzed to arrive at a
broad understanding of the tone and content of the candidate’s
arguments2
2. Thematic analysis - the idea here is to understand the encoding
process, especially the intentions that lie behind the production of
mass media documents. It is sometimes aimed at discovering the
ideological biases in the documents
3. Textual analysis - examining the linguistic devices within the
documents in order to show how texts can be influential in
encouraging a particular interpretation.
4. Audience analysis - it focuses on the
responses of the audience as well as the content
of the mass media. It recognizes that the
audiences actively interpret messages rather
than just being passive.

● Critique- subjective judgements, quality of output depends upon quality

of input, can decipher only manifest meanings of the communication

(Refer Semiotics- Pg. 50, NS)

❖ Projective Techniques
● A set of qualitative techniques used to measure attitude
● Either people kept unaware of what’s being measured (ethical issues) or
they’re unable consciously to affect what’s being measured
● Involves- presenting a person with an ambiguous or incomplete stimulus
requiring interpretation from which attitude is inferred
● Most commonly used in socio-psycho studies
● Examples-
1. Rorschach Inkblot Test
2. Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
3. Draw a Person Task

● Critique- lack objectivity (dependent on observer); indirect method likely

to lead to difft. conclusions
❖ Interview
● One of the most widely used research methods in Socio
● A guided convo b/w the researcher & respondent
● Types- face2face, telephonic & group
● Difference b/w structured & unstructured interview- Pg. 52, NS
● Advantage- more flexible than other tools, can cover larger samples, can
gather info about past & future also (PO- info only about present)
● Limitations- interviewer/responder/situation bias, issues of reliability &
validity (variation in context & change in interviewer), social desirability
bias language/accent/dialectics etc. can make situation difficult

❖ Questionnaire
● Organised activity of infor gathering with pre-set questions in a pre-set
order
● Process:
★ Administration of Questionnaire- face2face (pros- under expert
observation so correct filling, cons- interviewer’s bias), sent by
post, online
★ Producing questionnaires and analyzing the data-
Questionnaires tend to be used to produce quantitative data,
while testing a hypothesis. Some idea of what factors are
important is needed before constructing a questionnaire.

In the process of choosing questions, researchers have to

operationalize concepts - abstract concepts have to be translated
into concrete questions that make it possible to take
measurements relating to those concepts.

Questions may be open-ended, allowing the respondent to

compose their own answers. However, this may be difficult to
classify and quantify

Primary questions elicit information directly related to the research

topic. Secondary questions elicit information not directly related to
the topic, but guards the truthfulness of the respondents. Tertiary
questions only establish a framework that allows convenient data
collection and building of rapport

Once the data has been collected and classified, it is analyzed.

Statistical tools and multivariate analysis are used here.

● Questions shouldn’t be changed when survey has begun and covered

some of the sample population
● Of 2 types:
★ Close ended- limited responses given as MCQs, suitable for
Positivist research as quantitative data collection involved
★ Open ended- descriptive answers reqd allowing views of
respondent to be presented, difficult to quantify & classify
 A hybrid of above 2 maybe used- semi-structured
questionnaire
● Advantages-
★ Practical way to collect large quantities of data from considerable
numbers of people over a relatively short period of time.
★ Results are easily quantifiable and can be analyzed more
scientifically and objectively than qualitative data
★ Can be used inductively or deductively, to try and establish cause
effect relationships through multivariate analysis

● Limitations- social desirability bias, non-response bias, poor return rate,

difft values attached by difft members of difft. social groups (ex- mental
health study of Kevin Clancey), researcher bias in terms of decision of
impt questions, unusable in case of illiterate TG (issue of misdirection)

❖ Pilot Study
● small-scale preliminary study conducted before the main research in
order to check the feasibility or to improve the design of the research.
● avoid time and money being wasted on an inadequately designed project
● usually carried out on members of the relevant population, but not on
those who will form part of the final sample, as that might influence their
later behaviour
● have the following prerequisites:
1. If interviews or questionnaires are to be used,
the questions can be tested to make sure that
they make sense to respondents, are
unambiguous and produce the required
information. This can help improve the reliability
and response rate of the research
2. It can help researchers develop ways of building
rapport and developing full cooperation of the
subjects, so as to garner open and honest
answers
3. It can help develop the research skills, especially of amateur
interviewers
4. It may determine whether or not a research goes ahead. Funding
organizations may demand the result of a pilot before
greenlighting the whole research. If a pilot study is unsuccessful,
the full study may be abandoned

❖ Survey
● Best suited for quantitative & Positivist research
● A comprehensive perspective on some subject based on info obtained
from a carefully chosen representative set of people
● Facilitates collection of info over a large population
● Info collected can by analysed with statistical techniques, mathematical
models & computer simulations
● Forms- orally, telephonic, printed material
 ● Father of modern social survey- Le Play (studied workers living with
families)
● Crucial aspects- selection of a representative sample size (can be
preceded by a pilot survey)
● Biggest advantage- allows generalised results for a large population

● Guiding principles:
★ Recognition of relevant sub-groups in a stratified population
★ Selection of sample- based on chance- randomisation
● Types:
★ On basis of objective of survey- descriptive or analytical
★ On basis of sampling technique employed- simple, random,
stratified or cluster

● Stephen Ackroyd and John A. Hughes distinguished three main types

of surveys:
1. Factual survey- to collect descriptive information. Such surveys
have been used to collect data on poverty and social exclusion.
Example: government census
2. Attitude survey- attempts to discover the subjective states of
individuals. Example: attitude towards government policies or
towards a political party.
3. Explanatory survey- tries to test theories and hypotheses or to
produce new theories. Most sociological surveys contain some
explanatory element.Example: Marshall et al. tested the theory
that routine white-collar workers had become proletarianized.

●Disadvantages:
★ Lacks depth
★ Approach and asking of questions may differ since many people
involved in the activity- that’s why carefully designed survey
instrument required
❖ Schedule
● Similar to questionnaire except that it’s filled by a specially appointed
enumerator
● Questions asked in a pre-defined proforma
● Facilitates data collection in an objective manner
● Prevents loss of info on account of forgetfulness
● Facilitates easy analysis of data
● Types- interview, rating, observation & survey

❖ Longitudinal Research/Panel Studies

● Some researchers study a group over an extended period, collecting data
on them at regular intervals
● Facilitates both quali as well as quanti research
● originated as extended public attitude surveys to assist in policy decisions
● Example: West and Farrington in ‘Who becomes delinquent?’,
followed 411 London schoolboys from age 8 to 18
 ● Major advantage is the ability to pick up change; Wall and Williams point
out that retrospective studies that ask people to report on past events in
their lives rely upon fallible human memories. Longitudinal studies help
overcome this problem, and also, avoid the pitfall of events being
reinterpreted in the light of subsequent consequences.
● Limitations-
★ selection of people who are accessible and willing to cooperate
over an extended period
★ the size of the sample is liable to fall as some individuals become
unwilling to continue to take part, or prove impossible to trace
★ subjects of the research are conscious of the fact that their
behavior is being studied. This may influence them to change
their behavior because they think more carefully about their
actions.

❖ Biographical or Life History Research

● Like a case study on single person and his life
● Includes- oral histories, autobiographies, narratives, interviews etc.
● Robert Miller- it’s a research method that collects and analyses a
person’s whole life or part of life through in depth & unstructured
interviews
● Yield info written over periods of time- allowing gradual & deep
understanding
● Feminist researchers argue that life histories help women understand
their situation, and once they’ve understood, it can help them to change it;
Critical researchers use them to raise people’s consciousness &
awareness of their own exploitation by encouraging them to reflect upon
the factors that have shaped their life experiences
● Cross check available
● Examples: a study of the life of a Polish peasant conducted by Thomas
and Znaniecki
● Limitation- prone to biases of writers

❖ Historic Analysis or Documentary Research

● Method for looking into past & connecting with the present for deeper
perspective about current issues/problems
● Sources- govt archives, historical records, personal diaries
● Shows social values & ideas upon which present social structures are
based
● Issue- fact collection is a stupendous task, can’t be subjected to
experimentation & no use of stats possible
● Peter Laslett made extensive use of parish records in order to discover
how common nuclear and extended families were in pre-industrial
England. Such data have been useful in correcting the assumption that
extended families were a norm in the past. However, findings based upon
such sources need to be used with caution, as many parish records have
not survived, and it may be incorrect to generalize based upon partial
records.
● Documentary research- a particular type of historical analysis is which
docs used as a source (govt docs, memoirs, newspapers etc.)
 ❖ Life Documents
● Personal records of an individual’s experiences & social actions ‘
predominantly qualitative
● can take a wide variety of forms- Diaries, letters, photos, memos,
biographies, graffiti, memoirs, suicide notes, tombstone memorials,
videos, portraits, emails etc.
● Their use was popularized by Thomas and Znaniecki in their study-
America. They used 764 letters, a
personal statement, reports from social work agencies, court reports and
articles from Polish newspapers. From such sources they tried to
understand and explain the experience of migration for the Polish people
who moved to America in the early years of the 20th century
● Limitations- docs difficult to obtain, are open to interpretation and may
say more about the subjective states of individuals than the events they
are describing, Personal documents that are meant to be read by others
may be written with an audience in mind
● Pro- Compared to other secondary sources, personal documents allow
much greater insight into the subjective states of individuals, which in turn
shape their behavior

❖ Internet
● Stuart Stein suggests the following criteria to be considered when using
material from the internet:
1. Authorship
2. Authority of the author
3. Authority of the material
4. Authority of the site / organization
5. Pressure groups / objectivity

● Annette N. Markham outlines the following characteristics of the internet

1. As a medium of communication, it opens up
possibilities of reaching out to a large number
of people
2. It is geographically dispersed
3. Anonymity
4. Context of social construction, it seems to
produce a sense of meaning and identity that
comes to be seen as real

● Teela Sanders used the internet extensively in her study on sex workers.
She got ethnographic information about the sex industry from using the
website Punternet which provided message boards & ‘field reports’ from
clients of sex workers & facilitated communication b/w the workers & their
clients. She also used emails to contact and then interview some of the
sex workers

Variables
 ❖ Those parameters whose value changes with situation, are key elements of an
experiment
❖ 2 kinds- dependent (generally this is measured in any study) & independent

Education level- can be dependent when being measured in a study or

independent in studying unemployment levels

Durkheim’s study of Suicide

❖ In any social experiment, researcher needs to identify the variables and then est
relationship, easy to do in NS as controls available but in Socio, indirect
experiments are used
❖ Proper weightage given to difft variables to determine their impact

Sampling

❖ Provides a representative set of data standing for the whole population

❖ Process- defining population-set, specifying sample frame and sampling method
❖ Of primarily 2 types:
1. Probability Sampling- every element in the sample population has equal
chance of being selected; it’s of following types-
● Lottery or Simple Random Sampling- sample selected by
selecting the sample size, simplest form with highest randomness
(true probability sampling), nowadays computer algorithms used
for this
● Systematic Random Sampling- sample selected on the basis of
some predefined criteria. Ex- every 10th member of population
● Stratified Sampling- used when specific subgroups w/in a
population have to be highlighted, requires small sample size, but
a complex method; common stratas used- age, gender, religion
etc. It has homogeneity in the stratum but heterogeneity across
the strata. Biggest advantage- high representation
● Cluster Sampling- either spatial or temporal, can be multi-stage
also; is cheap, quick & easy; disadvantage- least representative &
high sampling error due to inclusion of limited clusters in the
sample

2. Non- Probability Sampling- done when randomness is impossible in the

sampling process due to data unavailability, costs etc.it’s of following
types-
● Convenience or Accidental Sampling- sample drawn from
population that is closer at hand (industrial workers example)
● Purposive Sampling- type wherein purpose is there in mind and
sample sample characteristics are predefined (ex- male
population of 40-50 yrs in a socio-eco survey); it’s subtypes are:
★ Quota Sampling- people selected by fixing some quotes
to facilitate particular group’s representation
★ Snowball Sampling- works on referral principle, used
when TG not easily traceable (ex- survey of drug-addicts)
 ❖ 2 types of Sampling errors-
1. Sampling errors- due to over/under coverage, non-response & subject
bias
2. Non- sampling error- due to mistakes in design or application of
methods

Hypothesis

❖ Sort of a raw theory (believed by you) whose correctness awaits validation by

data collection & correlation
❖ States objective of research
❖ May yield a theory, concept or generalisation upon validation
❖ Should reasonably show the interconnectedness b/w 2 or more variables
❖ Can be- inductive (after reasoning from multiple inputs) or deductive (based on
prevalent ideologies/viewpoints & there are attempts to falsify a prevalent theory)

❖ Prerequisites for a good hypothesis:

● Simple in formulation
● Based on sound reasoning & ample pre info
● Awareness of instruments available to measure the variables
● Direct the investigation
● Lead to discovery of general laws & principles
● testability - possible (soundness of a hypothesis measured by testing)

❖ To test a hypothesis, a social researcher makes 2 hypotheses:

1. Null Hypothesis (H0)- no relationship b/w 2 or more variables
2. Alternate Hypothesis (H1)- there is some relationship b/w variables
under observation

❖ 2 kinds of errors in testing a hypothesis:

1. Type 1 Error/ significance level/ Alpha- researcher rejects a null
hypothesis when it’s actually true
2. Type 2 Error/Beta- researcher fails to reject a false null hypothesis,
probability of not committing it- Power of the test

❖ Difficulties with Hypothesis:

● Difficult to formulate & test- form & quality of data of a researcher
questioned by the other
● Difficult to define null & alternate hypothesis (marital breakdown &
alcoholism example)
● Value bias
● No generalised results or causal explanations- changing social
circumstances & nature of individuals

Reliability (‘Self Correlation of Test’)

❖ Leads to repetition of the same result

❖ Replication of experiment facilitates checking errors in observation &
measurement & generalisations can then be made
 ❖ It’s of 2 types:
1. Temporal- reproducibility of same results at different times
2. Comparative- concerned with change of target, testing methods,
observers & so on
❖ Can be improved by objective methods usage
❖ Qualitative methods criticised for failing to be reliable because- data collection
procedures may be unsystematic, rarely quantifiable results, no way of replicating
study & checking reliability of findings
❖ Some methods- statistical techniques & sampling more reliable than PO & open-
ended interview

Validity

❖ It’s the degree of meeting the desired goal/ achieving the intended result
❖ Difficult to achieve in qualitative research as there are no fixed goals in terms of
outcome but quantitative methods also criticised as they lack depth of describing
meanings underlying social actions
❖ Respondent validation- advocated to overcome validity issues wherein
respondents check research findings to correct any misinterpretations/
inaccuracies
❖ Alan Bryman, in ‘Social Research Methods’- classified 4 types of validity:
1. Internal- affirms causal relationship
2. External- degree to which the results apply to a larger population
3. Measurement/Construct- whether measure employed actually
measures what it claims
4. Ecological- how closely a research study mirrors the natural settings of
people’s real experiences

❖ Factors influencing validity:

● History or change in time
● Instrumentation
● Selection bias

❖ Validity poor due to change in social situations, ideological orientations of difft

sociologists & little scope of controlled experimentation

A valid result is always reliable, but a reliable result may not be valid

(Refer fig- Pg. 63, NS)

To overcome limitations associated with reliability & validity (esp with quali
research), some socio researchers have suggested to judge research on some
difft criteria

Lincoln & Guba- alternative terms can be used to judge nature of research-
trustworthiness, credibility, transferability & confirmability

Hammersley- focus on relevance of research

❖
CHAPTER-4 Social Thinkers

Marx

Historical Materialism or The Materialistic Conception of History

❖ Clearest exposition in- ‘Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’

❖ Conception of society- evolution from one stage (MoP) to another
❖ Historical- analysis of society in terms of evolution

Marx- ‘History is a process of man’s self- creation’

Man’s involvement in RoP has created history so understanding of history-

understanding of society

❖ Materialistic because
● Conception of society based on materialistic factors, not metaphysical
● Change understood in terms of changing material conditions & not ideas
❖ 2 aspects of HM:
● Material conception of society is in terms of eco infra and social
superstructure- 2 conceptual entities to understand MoP/ society
● Historical evolution process- dialectic (2 opposing forces interact & new
structures are produced, dialectic process continues)

❖ Historical/dialectical materialism- hegelian notion of dialectical idealism; Marx-

material conditions and not ideas- important in working of any MoP
● The Dialectic:
★ Reciprocal relations
★ Fact and value
★ Dividing lines
★ Past, present and future
★ No inevitabilities
★ Conflict & contradiction
❖ Influenced by political economists- Ricardo and Smith
❖ Production-essential for survival, in order to produce man must enter into
relations, some forces also required
❖ 2 types of relations of production in any MoP:
● b/w man & man
● b/w man & things

Relations are in the nature of antagonistic cooperation

These relations are dynamic- antagonism will increase causing conflict b/w 2
classes and relations with things will also undergo change

These social relationships determine the existence of man and not his will (men
don’t decide social relations they’ll have in production process rather these
relations decide who the men will be- ruler or ruled)

Men- not driven by their inner voices that are subdued by the materialistic
considerations & social relations created by these dominant material relations
 ❖ Forces of Production:
● Men- haves and have nots
● Things- tools, techniques, equipments

Major social changes= evolution of FoP (creating new RoP), replacing the old &
creating a new MoP

FoP transform things naturally available to things exchangeable in the market

FoP- determine man’s control over nature- increases as history proceeds &
development of FoP= increasing control of man over nature

❖ Centrality of 1 major thing in every society

❖ Eco base/ eco infra/infra= FoP+RoP
❖ Society/MoP= eco infra (representing the centrality of material or eco factors
shaping the whole MoP) + social superstructure (all other aspects of society-
largely shaped by eco infra; in turn facilitates functioning of eco infra) (fig 4.3, Pg.
71 NS)
❖ Criticism:
● Karl Popper- economic reductionist
● Over emphasis on conflict, social order ignored (Simmel- conflict also
has functions)
● Marxists: conflict= relations w/in eco infra, Dahrendorf: conflict=
differential authority structures)
● Macro evolutionary aspect, micro aspects ignored (taken up by
non-positivists)

(Praxis- Pg. 69, NS)

Mode of Production

❖ 6 stages/ 6 evolutionary MoPs (4 historical, 2 futuristic)

1. Primitive communism
● H/G society
● Everyone is equal (population was low and food abundant), all
had equal access to forces of production
● FoP- primitive & at low level of development
● Relations- cooperative, not of domination
● Invention of new tools, forces became sophisticated; communal
structure broke up & new social organisations emerged and so
did private property
● Hence, conflict b/w earlier MoP and emerging one- negation of
primitive communism
● Owners of tools- masters, dependents- slaves
2. Ancient slave MoP
● Some men- control over skills & tools, others subordinate to them
● Mode symbolic of Ancient slavery- slaves had no control over
their labour as well
● ↑population, slaves pressurised to produce more- ↑exploitation
and slaves revolted
● Emergence of new MoP- agri & feudalism
3. Feudalistic MoP
 ● Landowning feudal lords (erstwhile masters) & landless serfs
(erstwhile slaves)
● Land- central to eco activity
● Serfs forced to cultivate on land and pay high taxes, they revolted
● Emergence of new MoP- capitalism
●
4. Capitalistic MoP
● Current MoP
● Capital- central to production
● Haves- bourgeoise (erstwhile feudal lords), have nots-
proletariat (erstwhile serfs)
● Marx- capital produces nothing, labour produces wealth yet
wages are too low
● Significant contradiction leading to class conflict- between social
character of production and private form of appropriation
● Capitalism is unstable acc to Marx and will be replaced by other
MoPs
5. Socialistic MoP
● Transitory MoP
● Proletariat will topple bourgeois in a revolution and control FoP
(dictatorship of proletariat)
● Will soon end, true potential of all human beings will be
recognised
6. Advanced Communism
● Final MoP
● Workers will renounce their rule and FoP will be communally
owned
● Everyone will carry on their own creative pursuit and there will be
no class
● No further MoP as contradictions will be resolved and no unequal
relations of production will exist
● Closing chapter of dialectical materialism
❖ Criticism:
● Futuristic communist utopia never arrived
● Some societies have difft. MoP (Asiatic)- counter to generalised theory of
MoP
● Reductionist, analysis limited to production & consumption aspects
ignored
● Ignored feminist dimension of production- patriarchy a factor in growth of
capitalism
● Predicts dialectic process will cease, some inequalities bound to remain

(Asiatic MoP- Pg. 72 NS)

Marx on Individual

❖ Man driven by society’s structure (he’s subordinate to it)

❖ Consciousness- function of a person’s position in the production process (FoP &
RoP influence human thoughts)
❖ 2 essential aspects of human nature:
1. Constant- called being- perpetually dissatisfied & creative; once society
limits this creativity, he feels alienated
 2. Other part of human nature- social being (governed by person’s social
position)- identified by work done by the individual, in today’s world man
is identified by this and not by being

Alienation

❖ Marx- there is an inherent relationship b/w labour and human nature and this
relation is perverted in capitalist MoP- Alienation
❖ Theory of alienation- rooted in social structure which act to break down natural
interconnections characteristic of human nature
❖ Its one of the contradictions of Marx’s dialectical approach- contradiction b/w
human nature which is defined and transformed by labour & actual conditions of
labour under capitalism
❖ Dealt by Marx in his work- ‘Economic and Political Manuscripts’
❖ Also refers to the feeling of powerlessness, isolation and meaninglessness
experienced when people confront social institutions outside their control and
oppressive of them
❖ Primitive man felt alienated due to being overpowered by nature. Designed fFoP
to control nature & alienation shifted from natural to social sphere
❖ An individual is essentially creative & his true consciousness is defined by his
being but man in a MoP- defined by his social being which is based on his work
❖ Man uses creativity to shape social world but this creativity is objectified with
his loss of control over what he produces
❖ 2 aspects:
● In a given MoP, it increases with time as material forces become stronger
and control over FoP becomes tighter- increasing exploitation
● Degree increases with change of MoP itself. Marx- History of mankind
is a history of alienation. Least in primitive communism, peaks in
capitalism where work= suffering
❖ Alienation in capitalist MoP- chapter- ‘Fetishism of Commodities’ (Das Kapital)
❖ Marx’s conception of commodity- rooted in his materialistic orientation with focus
on productive activities of actors
● Objects produced for use by oneself or by others in immediate
environment- they are use values
● Objects controlled by actors, have no individual existence
● In capitalism, objects produced for someone else, products have
exchange value (instead of immediate use, exchanged in open market
for money which is later used for acquiring other use values)
❖ (Fetishism of commodities- Pg. 76 NS, Pg. 60 R)
❖ 4 dimensions of Alienation in Capitalism:
1. From the process of production/productive activity
2. From the product
3. From the fellow workers
4. From oneself and one’s potential
❖ Solution- a state where production process will be overhauled and RoP modified
(in Communism)
❖ Criticism:
● Karl Popper- it can be a breeding ground for creative ideas
● Merton- people may rebel and innovate due to feeling of alienation
● Durkheim- can be corrected in existing structure, no need of overhaul
 ● Goldthorpe and Lockwood (in affluent worker study)- work just a means
to an end (better living), workers shaped by external environment than
work itself, affective needs can be satisfied through family
● C W Mills ( ‘White Collar’)- white collared staff also experience
alienation
● Robert Blauner (‘Alienation and Freedom’)- it depends on technology
used at work hence degree of alienation also differs
● Max Weber- over bureaucratization of society is the cause of it, man
guided by fixed rules hence creativity thwarted

Capital:

❖ Considered it as an independent structure, which ( through actors operating in its

behalf i.e. bourgeoise) exploits workers who are responsible for its creation
❖ Power of capital appears to be endowed by nature, a productive power inherent
in capital
❖ Hence, it’s reified by people considering natural for capitalist system to be
external to and coercive of them
❖ People exploited by a system they forgot that they produced through their labour
which they have the capacity to change

Private Property:

❖ Reified in capitalism
❖ Marx, by it, means private ownership of means of production by capitalists
❖ Acc to him, PP is also product of labour of workers
❖ But workers lose sight and control of it and instead of controlling it, start getting
controlled by it
❖ It’s not only product of alienated labour but once in existence, starts exacerbating
alienation through imposition b/w people and production process
❖ For realisation of human potential, people must overthrow it

Division of Labour:

❖ Another structural component of capitalism scrutinised by Marx

❖ Origins traced to early family, by Marx and Engels, where wife, children- slaves of
Husband
❖ Marx more critical of DoL’s pernicious form within capitalism
❖ Interest in tendency of structuration of work forcing people to specialize in minute
tasks
❖ Marx’s criticism of DoL:
● Artificially separates individual from community
● Labour process broken down so that ideally integrated functions are
separated
● Power of individuals- reduced to tools in production process
● Each person makes only small contribution to final product
❖ Conclusion- creation of a society where people are not narrowly specialised as
DoL has prevented people (proletariat in particular) from developing abilities to
the fullest
❖ Communism will remove artificial barriers preventing people from developing to
their fullest and foremost amongst those barriers is- DoL

Class and Society

❖ Class- fundamental unit of organisation acc. to Marx, society- always divided into
opposing classes
❖ In ‘Das Kapital’- class results from relations of production which create different
positions (group of people sharing same position in production process)
❖ 2 broad classes in every society:
1. The haves- masters, feudal lords, capitalists; owners of FoP
2. The have nots
❖ Talks of intermediate classes- ‘Revolutions and Counter-revolutions in
Germany’ (talks about 8 classes) and in ‘Class Struggle in France’ (talks about
6 classes)
❖ Class polarisation (Fig. 4.4, Pg. 78 NS)
❖ 2 expressions/ manifestations of class:
1. Objective- class in itself
2. Subjective- class for itself
❖ Class Struggle:
● In each MoP, haves and have nots entering into antagonistic relations
which leads to struggle that keeps on increasing
● New MoPs emerge as a result of this
● Changing FoPs- new set of relations- new relations conflict with old ones-
class struggle
● Also a result of Alienation, both peak in capitalism
● Mechanism differs in different societies (same in ancient and feudal but
difft. in capitalism), fundamental nature remains same
● Tragedy- farce
● While it changes MoPs in initial MoPs, qualitative change happens in
capitalism
● Mature conditions necessary for revolution:
★ Critical mass of workers with consciousness
★ Network of communication among workers
★ Clear perception of common enemy
★ Appropriate organisation
★ An ideology generated by leadership
● It will end with the end of dialectic materialism
● Criticism:
★ Futuristic conception failed to materialise after so many years
also, capitalism- stronger now, socialism- failed in countries,
communism- utopian concept
★ Frank Parkin in ‘Class Inequality and Political Order’ - class
exists even in socialistic countries
★ CS has moderated in Europe- epitome of Capitalism instead of
intensifying, workers affluent now, class- source of identity
★ Weber- other basis of stratification apart from economic
★ Lenski- other MoPs may emerge, not necessarily socialism post
capitalism
★ Dahrendorf- working class- heterogeneous and dissimilar hence
little chance of uniting for revolution
★ Ken Roberts- little evidence of development of class
consciousness- critical for CS
★ In the study, conducted
in England in 1970's by Goldthorpe and Lockwood, to examine
the embourgeoisement hypothesis.
 This study pictured the affluent worker as someone who regards
his factory as only a source of his livelihood. He does not have
any sense of pride in belonging to his factory. He does not
develop a sense of friendship or comradery with his fellow
workers. Work does not give him a sense of identity or meaning
in life. He seeks his identity in his leisure time activities. He looks
forward to going home and spending time with his family and a
small circle of intimate friends. He leads a very private life and
zealously guards his privacy. He continues to be a member of the
trade union but he is not an active participant in the Union's
affairs. He looks upon the union as a mere instrument in his
getting higher wages. Thus, instead of becoming an active agent
of social transformations the worker is becoming a passive
acceptor of the system and is interested only in getting a better
deal for himself from the system. All this evidence seems to
specifically contradict Marx's comments on the role of the working
class in capitalist societies.
Class Consciousness and False Consciousness

❖ Both capitalists and workers have false consciousness

❖ FC- one which doesn’t transcend (doesn’t talk about changing the system)
❖ Elements of FC of the bourgeoisie:
● Unaware of his history and role played in capitalism’s formation
● Underestimates durability of capitalism
● Unaware of consequences of his actions (contributing to ultimate demise
of system)
❖ CC- involves a solidarity energised by an appropriate system of ideas; wider
goal- emancipation of all
❖ Bourgeoise can never transform false consciousness into class
❖ Proletariat can develop class consciousness because its lack of property is future
model (where no one has property or collectively owned by everyone)
❖ Concept of FC and CC- not a static but a dynamic concept making sense only in
terms of social change and development
❖ FC- describes situation throughout capitalist epoch
❖ CC- awaits proletariat, will bring about change from capitalist to communist
society

Emile Durkheim

❖ In ‘Montesquieu and Rousseau’, he laid down general conditions for the

establishment of a science of society:
● Deal with specific subject matter
● Aim- identification of general types instead of individual
● Definite and observable field- to explore and study objective reality
● Yield general principles/laws
● Use methods of natural sciences

Social Facts

❖ He was highly influenced by NS which made him to try understanding society in

terms of some universal laws
❖ Durkheim in ‘Rules of Sociological Method’- distinctive subject matter of socio
should be study of social facts
❖ To separate socio from philosophical discourse
❖ Characteristics:
● Externality- exist outside the individual, are sui-generis
● Constraining/coercive- over individual action, constraining effect visible in
consequences of social facts
● Generality- are general, should not be confused with individual facts,
understood by everyone similarly. Durkheim- identification of general
types, ignores exceptions
● Independence- independent of will of individual, indi cannot change SF
but vice-versa possible
❖ In ‘Rules of Sociological Method’- he differentiated between 2 types of social
facts:
1. Material- are real, material entities but of lesser significance in his work.
Ex- architecture, law etc., they are empirically accessible. Studied first to
understand non material SF
2. Non-material- heart of his socio work, mental phenomena external to and
coercive of individuals. Ex- culture, social institutions, morality, collective
conscience, social currents etc., earlier societies were held together by
these (strongly held common morality- strong collective conscience),
abstract, difficult to grasp, can be studied indirectly only with material SF

It’s best to thin of non-material SF, at least partly, as mental phenomena

(1 that’s external to & coercive of another aspect of mental phenomena-
psycho facts)

❖ 2 ways of explaining SF:

● Determining cause of SF- cause lies in another SF (cause of suicide not
in individual’s will but in other SFs- population, social order, integration)
● Determining functions of SF- SF perform functional prerequisites-
maintenance of social order by collective conscience through constraining
individuals and their actions
❖ Rules of studying SF:
● Rules of observation (SF=things)
● Rules of classification
★ Structural/morphological facts
★ Institutional facts
★ Non-institutional facts
● Rules of distinction (b/w normal and pathological state)
● Rules of explanation (rules of explaining SF-objectivity, methods of NS,
yielding general theories)
❖ His focus on macro-level SF- central to development of structural functionalism
which has a macro-level orientation
● Saw society as composed of organs (SF) or structures that had functions
for society (an organismic analogy)
● Functions (ends served by s.structures) should be separated from factors
that caused them to come into existence
❖ Criticism:
● Heidleman- Durkheim concerned about making society than describing a
methodology for it
● Universal and general theories- no practical significance, Merton- MRT
required
 ● Stephens Lukes- D has glorified empiricism, neglected emotions and
individual subjectivity
● Peter Burger- ignored individual human behaviour to remain objective
● No explanation for why the same SF affects difft. people differently
● Weber- “SF don’t exist as things in their own right waiting to be
gathered like pebbles on a beach”. SF lie inside individual not external
to him, influence depends on individual’s interpretation of them, micro
view needed to study society

Division of Labour

❖ DoL- splitting of activities in a no. of parts/processes undertaken by difft. persons/

groups
❖ Due to upheaval in French society post FR, he was concerned with maintenance
of solidarity and social order
❖ Ans offered by DoL. Rejected Comte’s view- DoL is causing disorder in French
society, arguing that it’s not based on individual utility or pleasure. Morality in
modern society has not come down, it has been replaced by a new morality
❖ DoL, a social phenomena- causes also social, rejected classical and
neo-classical eco explanations of it (it’s not just for productivity and hence profit
but exists everywhere, at home also- hence it’s social)
❖ Product of autonomous development of society and is sui-generis
❖ Cause (evolutionary perspective):
● Primitive societies- actions of ind controlled by norms or collective
conscience of society; people living in individual segments, simple life,
similar activities done by everyone- state called mechanical solidarity
★ Solidarity due to sameness in activities and responsibilities,
religious societies with repressive norms securing conformity
hence min deviation
● Modern societies- control of norms/values weakened, strength of
collective conscience is weak, greater and more refined DoL;
characterised by organic solidarity
★ Society held together by differences among people, since
everyone performs a narrow range of task hence dependent on
others for survival

(differences- Pg. 87 NS)

❖ Cause of transition from mechanical- organic- dynamic density:

● Combination of- no. of people in a society (material density) and amount
of interactions occurring between them (moral density)
● With time, population increases leading to higher interactions- both
↑densities
● People from difft. segments have access to activities of other segments
now hence competition/struggle for existing occupations rises
● Fittest survives in existing occupations, unfit ones create new occupations
and specialisations
● Problem with dynamic density- solved through differentiation
● Initiates a never ending process of DoL and emergence of OS based
society
❖ Functions:
● ↑DoL- greater efficiency as resources↑ and more people can live
peacefully
 ● Integration of society- functional interdependence causes people to live
together in organic solidarity
● Autonomy for the individual- ↑population- ↑needs- further
specialisation, individuals relatively free and have freedom to innovate
now hence ↑autonomy
❖ 3 abnormal forms of DoL:
1. Anomic DoL- state of normlessness confronted by people in absence of
sufficient moral constraint.
★ DoL in modern society- source of cohesion compensating for
declining collective morality but cannot make up for it entirely,
economic pace faster than moral regulation
★ Customary limits to desires of people disrupted in a rapid change,
a new moral consensus on reasonable expectations of men
needed
★ Anomy is a pathology associated with ↑of OS- ind may be
isolated/cut adrift in specialised activities and cease to feel a
common bond.
★ This is only an abnormal situation which is curable.self- interest
should be replaced by code of ethics (function can be played by
occupational associations-agents of moral regulation)
2. Inadequate organisation/ poorly coordinated DoL- improperly
organised work- generation of conflicts and imbalances, workers doing
meaningless tasks, no unity of action, breakdown of solidarity
3. Forced DoL- task should be appropriate to the individual, distribution of
work incompatible with distribution of talent, such DoL- based on
inequality of opportunity- doesn’t produce long lasting solidarity

Solution- DoL- must be kept in a normal state- possible in a socialist

society by large no. of occupational associations implementing code of
ethics

❖ Criticism:
● Society’s will prioritised over individual’s interests
● Eco factors underplayed which play a large role in deciding patterns of
DoL in society

(Marx vs Durkheim- Pg. 89 NS)

Collective Conscience

❖ Anthony Giddens- CC in 2 types of societies differentiated across 4 dimensions

● Volume- no of people enveloped by it
● Intensity- how deeply they feel about it
● Rigidity- how clearly it’s defined
● Content- form it takes in 2 polar types of society

Suicide

❖ D exhibited use of SM for the 1st time in this study and showed the possibility of
discovery of real laws
❖ Suicide- defined in ‘Le Suicide’, positive and negative actions to commit it
❖ Objective- not why a person committed it but explaining differences in its rates
among different groups, contended that differences could be due to variations in
socio factors, particularly social currents (do from R)
❖ Data taken from police records from various regions of Europe at difft. time
periods
❖ Arguments supporting that it’s a socio phenomena:
● Showed data to disprove correlation b/w suicide rates and non social
factors like- temp, race, insanity, alcoholism
● Certain rate is normal in society, proved through stats

(Multivariate analysis- Pg. 90 NS)

❖ Social variables taken by him- marital status, locality (rural/urban), levels of

development, religious orientation (P/C), sex (M/F); undertook MVA to est relation
b/w these factors and suicide rates. Conclusions:
● Males have greater suicidal tendency than females
● Rate more among bachelors against married (marriage constrains by
integrating person into stable social relations)
● Underdeveloped < developed countries
● Protestants > Catholics (Protestantism- more freedom to people to
interpret religion hence less integrated to Church than Catholics)
● Main conclusion- less integrated, more suicidal
❖ 2 impt bonds:
1. Forces of integration- result in 2 types of suicides with 2 states of
integration- over and low:
● Altruistic-
★ results from over-integration, characteristic of traditional
societies with ↑mechanical solidarity.
★ Those committing this suicide do so as they feel that it’s
their duty
★ ↑such suicides spring from hope- depends on belief in
beautiful perspectives beyond this life
★ Ex- Sati, war soldiers, Japanese kamikaze pilots, mass
suicide of followers of Rev Jim Jones
● Egoistic-
★ low integration of ind. to society, feeble social bonds-
person feels alienated.
★ Societies with ↑collective morality are likely to prevent
occurence of this type.
★ Societies with a ↑CC and the protective, enveloping social
currents flowing from it- likely to prevent widespread
occurrence of ES by providing people with a sense of
broader meaning of their lives
★ In large scale units with weak collective conscience, ind
left to pursue private interests, this unrestrained egoism
likely to lead to dissatisfaction as all needs can’t be
fulfilled and those fulfilled generate more ultimately
causing dissatisfaction
★ Ex- from failure, success, depression, Protestant
christians commit this type due to ↑freedom by religion,
low rates during war as people are more integrated during
external threats.
 ★ Strongly integrated families, religious groups, polities-
agents of CC and discourage suicide
★ Society’s disintegration produces distinctive social
currents- principal cause of diff in suicide rates
★ Moral disintegration of society predisposes ind to such an
act but currents of depression must also be there to
produce diff in rates of ES
★ Actors- never free of the force of collectivity- the very
depression results from this exaggerated individualism.
He effects communion with sadness/melancholy when he
does not have anything to achieve it with
2. Forces of Regulation- control of individual by society, 2 types due to
over/under-regulation:
● Anomic-
★ Loose regulations- causing normlessness, occurring in
situations of eco boom or bust- individual’s desires- either
limitless or confused, lil control over passions of ind
running wild in an insatiable race for gratification

Eco bust- closing of a factory due to eco depression- loss

of job- ind cut adrift from the regulative effect of both Co.
& job so ind= vulnerable to effects of currents of anomie

Eco boom- sudden success drives ind away fro

traditional structures in which they are embedded; eco
success- ind move to new jobs, new communities, find a
new partner- changes disrupt regulative effect of extant
structures, so ind= vulnerable to effects of currents of
anomie

★ Acute economic- decrease in ability of traditional

institutions to regulate and fulfil social needs
★ Chronic economic- abolition of regulations and failure to
replace with new
★ Merton- anomie- occurs when disjunction b/w structural
goals and means available to achieve them
● Fatalistic-
★ Excessive control leads to this, oppression- suffocation
and powerlessness
★ Ex- Slave
★ Rare in modern societies
❖ Both these forces conceptualized in the form of social currents which influence
suicide rates
❖ Secondary role of psycho factors- possible, real cause- social
❖ Particular rate- normal, once committed, whole society works to reinforce apt
levels of integration and regulation. If rate inc beyond this, it becomes
pathological (abnormal)
❖ Criticism:
● J M Atkinson- quality of stats used- questionable, high rates in some
countries over other- may be due to difft investigation methods used
● Unreliable data- taken from police station, many cases go unreported,
attempted ones uncounted
 ● David Freedman- committing ecological fallacy (generalising a
personal phenomena)

(types of suicides- Fig. 4.7, NS)

Religion and Society

❖ Theory of religion- result of his concerns for social order & integration
❖ Existence of religion- as a SF, not supernatural phenomena
❖ Religion, acc to him, has a “dynamogenic” quality
❖ Discussed in his ‘Elementary forms of Religious Life’
❖ Source of data- studies of a primitive Australian tribe- Arunta, impt to study
religion in its primitive setting because:
● Much easier to study than in a complex modern society, religious forms in
primitive societies- shown in all their nudity, less effort to lay them bare
● Ideological systems of primitive society less developed than modern
● Religion in MS- takes diverse forms, in PS- in its pristine form
❖ Religion- uniform and ubiquitous in PS- hence religion= collective conscience; as
society develops and becomes specialised, religion comes to occupy a narrow
domain and becomes just one of the collective representations and if not all, most
of the various collective representations of MS have their origin in the
all-encompassing religion of PS
❖ Where does primitive (and modern) religion come from?
● As per his methodological position that one SF leads to another,
concluded that religion comes from society
● Society creates religion through individuals by defining certain
phenomena as:
★ Sacred- set apart and deemed forbidden, all things connected to
supernatural/divine, distance and fear maintained wrt them
★ Profane- all day-today things, other than sacred
★ Respect accorded to a phenomena transforms it from
profane-sacred
● Apart from these, 3 other conditions needed for development of religion:
★ Beliefs- representations expressing nature of sacred things and
their relations with profane things or each other
★ Religious rites- rules prescribing conduct of man in presence of
sacred things
★ Church/ single overarching community
❖ Causal explanation of religion (indirect experimentation method)
● MS- complex so est causal linkages- difficult, simpler forms of religion in
PS exist and if their causes are est, same will apply to MS
● Conducted an experiment on simplest form of religion- totemism
★ Certain things (animals/plants)- sacred, emblems of clan (simplest
primitive form of social organisation)
★ (Refer- Pg. 94, NS & Pg. 92, R)
● Collective effervescence- Pg. 92 R
❖ Religion- an example of self-creation and autonomous development of society
❖ Social obligations rep in sacred terms hence transformed into religious duties (ex-
marriage, pleasing gods, death in a battle)
❖ Why does man worship totems and not society itself?
 ● Easier for man to visualise things and direct feelings of awe towards a
symbol (totem) instead of a metaphysical thing (society) (reason for idol
worship in Hinduism)
❖ Functional aspect of religion:
● People following same religion- follow same beliefs, practices, moral
codes- all this binds them into a single community and integrates them
● Religion- basis of similarity hence brings people together in MS which is
highly individualised and differentiated
❖ Criticism:
● No explanation for why a particular totem is chosen; even a tribe may
have more than one totem
● Malinowski- it’s an armchair theory, didn’t visit Arunta tribe
● Generalisation of primitive religion to modern- far fetched
● Edmund Leach- profanity and sacred- 2 extremes
● Not religion but secularism binding people in modern industrialised
society
● Theory fails to explain cause of solidarity in multicultural polytheistic
societies- India
● Ignored conflict caused by religion

Max Weber

Sociology

❖ Father of modern sociological thought

❖ Pioneered interpretative approach- puts individuals and the way they think at the
centre
❖ Instead of focusing on society at grand level (like Functionalists- D), maintained
focus on micro level (individual and his/her actions)
❖ Weber as a:
● Positivist- favoured use of SM
● Non- Positivist- subject matter drawn from idealists- interpretation of
social actions
❖ Significance of collective concepts- patterns and regularities of individual action
❖ Aim of socio- est cause and effect- can be est. by understanding meanings
attached by actors to their actions

Social Action

❖ 2 conditions for any action to be social:

● If some meaning is attached to it by the actor, meanings= motivation of
an ind which is his own subjective state. Rejected independent influence
of values, considered interpretation of values by an actor acc to his
motivation acc to which an action is taken
● If action is oriented to some other, orientation can be- mental or
physical
❖ Action difft. from purely reactive behaviour which is automatic w/o any thought
process
❖ Social Action (SA)- excludes imitative and mass conditioned actions from
scope of its meaning as above 2 conditions are not fulfilled
❖ Methods for establishing meanings:
1. Verstehen- means comprehending/ understanding at actor’s level, one
of the tools of interpretative understanding, comprehension of meaning by
following steps of investigation:
● Reconstruct situational choices and constraints of actor
● Investigator at same wavelength as that of actor
● No sympathy with actor/situation- ensures objectivity
● Finally- enter into conversation with actor, primary sources of data
collection for est meanings
● 2 types of understandings for meaning decipherment:
★ Direct observation understanding (Aktuelles
Verstehen)- direct observation of a person’s action by the
investigator & deriving meaning- but alone, it’s insufficient
to explain human action. Eg- observing a person cooking
or writing etc.
★ Explanatory/ Empathic understanding (Eklarendes
Verstehen)- meanings attached to an act understood in
terms of motives giving rise to it; to find reasoning behind
an action- is a person cooking for himself or for others?do
they get paid for it?etc.

Actions can have difft meanings in difft cultures & societies; w/o proper
investigation 1 is at the risk of misinterpreting the data collected. Ex- body
gestures- susceptible to be misleading if not understood contextually

Eg- during the US Prez inauguration day (2005), Prez Bush gestured
“Hook ‘em Horns” (salute of the Uni of Texas Longhorns)- raising his fist
with his index & lil finger extended- newspapers got puzzled as the
gesture meant mocking a person whose spouse cheated on them in
countries like Argentina, Brazil Spain & Portugal

Criticism- difficulty in validating the interpretations arrived at through

Verstehen as interpretation of SA= coloured by investigator’s
biases/understanding

2. Causal Pluralist Methods- rejected monocausal explanations, causes

can be plural- probabilistic approach

3. Ideal type- mental construct used to identify certain regularities in social

life, 4 ideal types of SA:
● Traditional SA- meanings drawn from traditions/beliefs, least
conscious thinking involved (religious actions); actor’s habitual &
customary way of behaving.
● Affective SA- meanings= from emotions of actors, orientation of
emotions, relatively ↑consciousness than above SA (mother
slapping child)
● Zweckrational SA- end/goal rational actions- action logical as
ends logically defined, most conscious (scientific research).
● Wertational SA- value oriented rational action-goal defined by
society’s values & actor takes logical actions to fulfil that goal
(soldiers serving the country). Action determined by a conscious
belief in the value for its own sake of some ethical, aesthetic,
 religious, or other form of behaviour, independently of its
prospects for success.

Any action can be compared with above ideal types and

meanings can be attached, one action may include a combination
of one or more of the above types.

Eg- a jeweller makes a ring as a part of his livelihood, yet he may

also be motivated by the happiness he brings in the eyes of a
woman who is gifted the ring

ITs provide investigator with ready models hence saving their time

❖ SA determines structural transition in society- causes/meanings attached to

SA- necessary to understand what pushes social change. For Weber- changes=
result of encouragement by society to certain types of motives for actions by
individuals (hence, human actions relevant to understand social change).

Eg- in his book TPESC- he explained that emergence of Calvinism promoted

frugal living, saving money & business investments because
success/profit-making= God’s satisfaction with the person’s actions. This religious
idea eventually led to capitalism in n.Europe (17th-18th C)

❖ Criticism:
● Hans Gerth and CW Mills- Weber implied concern with mental
processes, actually spent little time on them
● Stress on individual meanings, impact of social structures ignored
● Not objective- Verstehen and Ideal Types- susceptible to subjectivity of
investigator
● Collective action ignored
● Unintended meanings and consequences of SA- ignored, Merton- latent
functions
● SA definition handicapped by condition of orientation towards others,
Merton- expanded meaning of SA by including situational choices,
constraints & aspirations of the actor
● Focus on society’s role in encouraging certain SAs leading to social
change, critiqued by later scholars through methods like SI wherein
individuals’ agency & freedom to shape their identities= influences
societal change.

Ideal Types

❖ A concept constructed by a social scientist basis his/her interests and theoretical

orientation to capture essential features of some social phenomena
❖ IT- abstractions or pure types (not necessarily desirable or perfect) constructed
through emphasising on certain traits of social items, which are employed to
understand the complexities of the social world.
❖ Act as a fixed point of reference
❖ Although derived inductively from the social history (instead of personal
judgments alone), they’re not to mirror the social world.

Instead, they are 1-sided exaggerations (based on researcher’s interests) of the

essence of what goes on in the real world.
 ❖ Use of the word ‘ideal’- doesn’t construe best of all possible worlds. Weber-
form described in the concept was rarely, if ever, found in the real world. ITs
needn’t be +ve/correct- can be easily -ve/morally repugnant as well.

❖ Need for building ITs- complex nature of social reality- can be understood only
in parts- features of a part must be understood separately for this (only critical
features > others). IT construction depends on inquiry & features may vary.

Weber- it’s function is comparison with the empirical reality in order to est its
divergences or similarities, to describe them with the most unambiguously
intelligible concepts, & to understand and explain them causally.

For eg- 1. social scientist’s construction of IT of bureaucracy basis their

immersion in historical data- this IT can then be compared to actual
bureaucracies- divergences in real cases from exaggerated ITs seen- causes for
deviations analysed. Examples of typical divergences:

● Actions of bureaucrats motivated by misinformation

● Strategic errors by bureaucratic leaders
● Logical fallacies in actions of bureaucratic leaders & followers
● Decisions in bureaucracy taken basis the emotions

2. Components of IT of military battle- opposing armies, strategies materials on

both sides, disputed lands, command centres, leadership qualities etc. researcher wants to know
the reasons for absence of some of these in the actual battles

❖ Formulation-
● formed by a no of elements which the trained investigator may find in the
form of abstractions drawn from subjective meanings of the individual
● these elements are thus based on interpretation of investigator but are
definitive specific traits constituting the reality
❖ Cannot be developed once and for all (society & interests of social scientists-
changing), necessary to develop new typologies to fit the changing reality. Acc to
Weber- there are no timeless concepts in social sciences

❖ Categories:
● Historical
● General Sociological
● Action
● Structural
❖ Should neither be too general (nomo) nor too specific (idio), rather developed for
intermediate phenomena. Ex- Religion
❖ Functions:
● A measuring rod for a social process
● Act as a ready conference (ex- IT of Capitalism-ref for commercial
activities of 17th century)
● Facilitates predictions
● Est linkages b/w multiple social phenomena (ex- PESC)
❖ Criticism:
 ● No specific method for identification of elements of IT
● Susceptible to subjectivity of investigator, like in selection of elements of
IT

Authority

❖ A demonstration of IT in action
❖ Power- capability of individual to influence others irrespective of their will;
Authority- a legitimate power’ 3 sources of legitimacy- tradition, rationality and
charisma (on basis of which he formed 3 ITs of authority)
❖ Coercion differentiates power from authority
❖ Authority structures exist in every social institution
❖ 3 ITs of authority based on various types of social action:
1. Traditional Authority-
● authority based on customs, beliefs and values (ex- authority of a
hereditary monarch, a caste Brahmin etc.)
● Based on claim by the leaders and belief on part of followers that
there’s virtue in the sanctity of age-old rules & powers
● Leader, here- personal master; administrative staff- personal
retainers
● Staff obeys leader as he carries the weight of traditions
(bureaucratic staff owes allegiance to enacted rules & to the
leader who acts in their name)
● Different forms:
★ Gerontocracy- rule by elders
★ Patriarchalism-inheritors of position
★ Patrimonialism-traditional administration with an
administration and a military force that are personal
instruments of master
★ Feudalism (modern)- contractual relation b/w leader and
subordinate
● Structures and practices of traditional authority- barriers to
development of rationality & rational eco structures- particularly
capitalism
2. Charismatic Authority-
● Result of personal qualities of person exercising it, corresponds to
affective SA (ex- Gandhi)
● Doesn’t deny presence of qualities in a charismatic leader but
contends that- charisma dependent on group of disciples and way
they define the leader
● Charismatic leader, then, can be someone who’s ordinary- crucial
is the process by which such a leader is set apart from the
ordinary & treated as if endowed with supernatural, superhuman
or exceptional powers or qualities inaccessible to the ordinary
person.
● Charisma- a revolutionary force, this authority becomes
pronounced during war/ turmoil when other types seem to be
failing
● System inherently fragile, survives only with the leader
● Not as effective as legal-rational- members not technically trained,
organisation not done rationally, no formal rules, no administrative
organs or precedents for guiding judgements
 ● (Routinization of Charisma Pg. 1290-130, R)
3. Legal Rational Authority-
● Based on Zweckrational SA
● Can take various structural forms, most interesting to Weber-
bureaucracy (purest type of exercise of legal authority)
❖ Real world:
● Any specific form of authority contains combination of all 3 (Ex-
Roosevelt, Nehru)
● Constant tension among them, charismatic- constant threat to other forms

(Refer- Pg. 130-131, R)

❖ Criticism:
● Foucault- authority power, not with institutions or people; power- highly
dispersed and operates at all levels in difft. Situations
● Robert Dahl- authority is situational and relative also

Bureaucracy

❖ An IT of organisation in which structure based on legal rational authority, suitable

to modern societies where work is done rationally
❖ Weber defines Bureaucracies in I-Typical terms:
● Capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency
● Most rational known means of exercising authority over human beings
● Superior to any other form in terms of precision, stringency of discipline &
in its reliability
● Makes possible a particularly high degree of calculability of results for the
organisational heads & those acting in relation to it
● Formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative tasks
❖ Elements/characteristics:
● Organisation of official functions bound by written legal rational rules
● Specified sphere of competence for each office
● Hierarchy of officials
● Offices carry technical qualifications requiring suitable training of
participants
● Staff does not own MoP, provided with use of things needed for job
● Incumbent disallowed to appropriate position. It lives on
● Acts, decisions, rules- formulated and recorded in writing
❖ This IT- only approximated in reality but he says modern societies moving
towards it because of tech superiority over other types of organisations
❖ Negative aspects:
● Source of alienation
● Iron cage of rationality enslaving humans (Pg. 107, NS)
● Future- dictatorship of officials
● Threat to individual liberty
❖ No alternative, needs of mass administration- make it indispensable
❖ Bureaucracy in capitalistic society v/s socialistic- Pg. 126, Ritzer
❖ Ray of Hope- professionals outside the system can control to some degree
(politicians, scientists, intellectuals, capitalists, heads of bureaucracies).

For ex- Weber- politicians must be the countervailing force against bureaucratic
domination; his essay, ‘Politics as a Vocation’- plea for the development of pol
leaders with a calling to oppose the rule of bureaucracies & of bureaucrats
 ❖ Criticism:
● Robert Michels- democracy turned to oligarchy due to bureaucracy
● Utopian idea- humans can’t be totally rational
● No flexibility in uncertain events
● Unsuitable for crisis
● Too much compliances hamper development

PESC

❖ Contained in ‘The Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism’

❖ Known for use of SM, studying macro phenomena in micro and demonstration of
causal pluralism
❖ Emphasis on ideas (Protestantism- a system of ideas) leading to another system
of ideas i.e spirit of capitalism leading to an eco. system- capitalism
❖ It’s not about the rise of modern capitalism but about the origin of a peculiar spirit
that eventually made modern rational capitalism expand & come to dominate the
economy.
❖ Began by examining and rejecting alternative explanations for- why
Capitalism arose in the West (in 16th-17th C); arguments against reasons:
● Material conditions right- they were also ripe at other times yet C did not
arise
● Psychological theory (due to acquisitive instinct)- such an instinct always
existed yet didn’t produce C in other situations
❖ Evidence for his view on the significance of Protestantism- examination of
countries with mixed religious systems where leaders of eco. system were all
Protestants; suggested that Protestantism- a significant cause in choice of
occupations and other religions failed to produce idea systems impelling people
into such vocations
❖ In Weber’s view, this spirit isn’t defined simply in terms of eco greed; it’s a moral
& ethical system that stresses on eco success (turning of profit-making into
ethos= critical in the West; other societies- pursuit of profit- ind act, seen at least
partly motivated by greed). Protestantism succeeded in turning the pursuit of
profit into a moral crusade.
❖ The spirit of capitalism can be seen as a normative system involving a no of
interrelated ideas:
● Its goal- instil an attitude which seeks profits rationally & systematically
● Preaches an avoidance of life’s pleasures
● Ideas like- time is money, be industrious, frugal, punctual, fair, earning
money- legitimate end in itself, people’s duty- ceaselessly increase wealth

This takes the SoC out of the realm of individual ambition & into the category of
ethical imperative

❖ Developed the ITs of Capitalism & Protestant Ethics (Calvinism- original form of
such ethics) and made a comparative study to est causal links b/w the 2:
● Elements of IT of Calvinism:
★ Doctrine of predestination
★ This worldly asceticism
★ All work is sacred
★ World created by God for his glory
★ No mediation of priest reqd
★ Wealth- conserved and devoted to God
● Elements of IT of capitalism:
 ★ Aim- unlimited accumulation of profit
★ Work organised rationally
★ Ethics- time is money, work to be done well, work’s for an end-
profit
❖ Correlation b/w the 2:
● Doctrine of predestination- uncertainty about destiny- feeling of insecurity-
intense this worldly activity (success in this world= chosen one in that
world)
● Hard work- avenue to overcome fear of uncertain- leads to hard work
reqd for capitalism
● Asceticism- avenue to overcome fear of uncertain- savings (reinvested in
capitalism)
● Conclusion- coincidence b/w requirements of Capitalism and tenets of
Calvinism
❖ Weber believed in plurality of causes- spirit and substance in this case; spirit
provided by Protestantism and substance= new factory system, new accounting
techniques, newly invented tools & machines, democratic political system for
stable governance & mkt.
❖ Validated correlation through historical comparative studies of difft. world religions
(developed ITs of those and proved why capitalism didn’t arise in their context):
● ‘Religion of China’ (Pg. 146-147, Ritzer)
● ‘Religion of India’ (Pg. 148-149, Ritzer)
❖ Calvinism- crucial to rise but no longer necessary for continuation of that eco.
System today; Capitalism today- a real entity with norms, values, market, money,
laws (in Durkheim’s terms, it’s a SF now external and coercive to individual)

❖ Capitalism- unanticipated consequence of the Protestant ethic. People create

social structures but those structures soon take a life of their own over which the
creators have lil/no control; lack of control= structures free to develop in
unanticipated directions

❖ Criticism:
● Considered only certain aspects of religion, ignored others
● Doctrine of calling- already present in Catholics
● Selective in drawing elements for analysis (Milton Singer- Hinduism
example)
● Lawrence Stone- not PE but Brit aristocracy- accounted for rise of
capitalism

(Weber v/s Marx in Capitalism- Pg. 107, NS)

Talcott Parsons

Like Durkheim, Parsons began with the q- How social order is possible?

Parsons- social life is characterised by ‘mutual advantage & peaceful cooperation rather
than mutual hostility & destruction’. He started with considering the views of 17th C Eng
philosopher, Thomas Hobbes:
 ❖ Humanity is directed by passion & reason
❖ Passion- primary driving force, Reason- used to devise ways & means of providing their
satisfaction
❖ If people’s passions were allowed to rein supreme, they’d use any means at their
disposal- fraud, force for satisfying them, result= ‘the war of all against all’
❖ Fear of outcome- generated by another human passion= self-preservation
❖ Guided by SP, people restrain passions, give up liberty, enter into social contract with
fellows mediated by ruler/governing body to whom they submit for protection against
aggression, fraud, force of others
❖ So, man (self-interested, rational, calculating) forms an orderly society fearing
consequences if he did not

Durkheim disagreed- people obey social rules as they believe them to be just & right.

View shared by Parsons- Hobbe’s view presents inadequate explanation of social order.
Only a commitment to common values (value consensus) provides a basis for order in
society (integration of society)

Value Consensus

❖ If members of a society committed to the same values- tend to share a common identity-
basis for their unity & cooperation
❖ From shared values derive common goals. Values= general conception of what’s
desirable & worthwhile, Goals= directions in specific situations.

For eg- in W society, members of a particular WF- share the goal of efficient production in
factory- goal stemming from the general view of= eco productivity

❖ Roles= means whereby values & goals translate into action. A social insti- combination
of roles For eg- a business org made up of specialised roles combining to further the
goals of org
❖ Content of roles structured in terms of norms= define the rights & obligations applicable
to each role, norms- specific expressions of values. Thus, norms structuring the role of
CEO, manager, engineer, accountant, shop-floor worker owe their content partly to the
value of eco productivity
❖ At the most general level= the central value to the most specific= normative conduct, SS
infused with common values- this is the basis for social order

Acc to Parsons- main task of Socio- analyse institutionalised pattern of values

❖ Criticism:
● Consensus- assumed rather than being shown to exist. Research has failed to
reveal unequivocal, widespread commitment to the various sets of values seen to
characterise the Western society
● Society’s stability may owe more to the absence, rather than presence, of value
consensus. Eg- lack of commitment to the value of achievement by those at the
bottom of the stratification system serves to stabilise society.

Michael Mann- in a society where members compete for unequal rewards,

‘cohesion results precisely because there is no common commitment to core
values’.

● Consensus, in & of itself, won’t necessarily result in social order.

 Pier van den Berghe- consensus on norms like ‘extreme competition’
‘individualistic laissez-faire’, ‘treachery’ or ‘suspicion’- hardly conducive to social
solidarity & integration. Therefore, the content of values rather than VC- crucial
factor w.r.t social order.

Social Action

❖ Proposed- Voluntaristic Theory of Social Action (Action Theory)-

incorporating both objective and subjective elements; emphasis on action frame
of reference
❖ SA defined in- the SOSA
❖ 4 conditions of SA:
1. Occurs in a social situation
2. Oriented towards attainment of a goal
3. Regulated by norms and values
4. Investment of energy
❖ Alternatives to perform a SA, to attain a goal, influenced by 2 factors:
1. Motivational orientation (micro)- due to personal conditions of actor,
affected by foll needs:
● Cognitive
● Cathartic
● evaluative
2. Value Orientation (macro)- influence of norms and values of society,
influenced in 3 ways:
● Cognition
● Appreciation
● moral
❖ Classification of actions (EMI):
1. Instrumental Action- dominated by evaluative component
2. Expressive Action- appreciative component dominates
3. Moral Action- own motivation subordinate to societal values

Action Systems

❖ Precursor to idea of SS
❖ Highest conceptual abstractions in his theoretical framework
❖ 4 action systems (CSPO):
1. Organismic/biological/behavioural/physical System- makes energy
available (storehouse of energy)
2. Personality System- storehouse of motivation
3. Social System- interaction b/w units in society; 4 subsystems:
● Economic
● Political
● Social Institutions
● Socialisation system

(Fig. 4.11 Pg. 111, Fig. 4.12 Pg. 113- NS)

4. Cultural System- storehouse of information

❖ Characteristics of Action System:
 ● System- unified whole made up of interdependent parts- subsystems
each of which is a system in itself
● Each system has a boundary separating from other systems
● Organised in a stable manner for definite patterns of inter relations to
exist b/w subsystems
● Systems- dynamic
● Functional prerequisites need to be fulfilled for existence of system

Social System

❖ Constellation of SAs in the form of institutionalised social interactions

❖ Explained in- SOSA & SS
❖ Conditions for formation of SS:
● 2 or more individuals required in a social interaction
● Some collective goals (including motivation of individuals or values of
society)
● Consensus on role expectations
● Interaction will develop an abstract boundary around the system
❖ SS has 2 parts:
1. Structure- parts like institutions, organisations, kinships, power relations
etc.
2. Functions- functional prerequisites of a SS:
● Should be structured for compatible operation with other SSs
● Requisite support from other SSs- needed for its survival
● Meet significant needs of its actors
● Elicit adequate participation from members
● Min control over potentially disruptive behaviours
● Control sufficiently disruptive conflict
● Language required for its survival

Question1. How does the system survive? (structure ke POV se)

● Initially, SS viewed only in terms of structure by Parsons through his

Mechanism Equilibrium Phase -how mechanisms/ structures- family,
kinship institutions, stratifications etc. maintain eq- called Moving
Equilibrium
Cyber laws in place of lanes

(In above figure- specific mechanism is internet- fulfilling needs of knowledge

acquisition and connectivity, disturbance- cyber crime, feedback- cyber laws
hence new equilibrium maintained; if feedback doesn’t come structure crumbles)

Question 2. What are the functions fulfilled by a particular system? (ye nahi
honge to system survive nahi karega) (function ke POV se)

● Later, through his Requisite Functional Phase, he talked of SS in terms

of fulfilment of functions . Every system fulfils certain functions. SS, in
itself, performs the function of integration in society
● Function- complex of activities directed towards meeting a need/ needs
of the system.
● These functions seen as probs that society must solve for it to survive
● Solution to the 4 survival problems (as dealt with below) must be
institutionalised if a society is to continue in existence. So, society must
be organised in the form of ordered, stable social institutions that persist
through time.
 AGIL Framework

● Adaptation- relationship b/w the system & its environment. For a SS to

survive, it must have some degree of control over its envt.

Economy- institution primarily concerned with this function through

labour, production, allocation.

● Goal Attainment- need for all societies to set goals towards which social
activity is directed.

Political system- insti for est goals & deciding priorities b/w such goals,
allocate resources to achieve them

● Integration- solidarity, coordination b/w units of the SS

Law/ legal norms- main insti meeting this need, standardise relation b/w
insist & b/w ind to reduce the potential for conflict; conflict, if arises, dealt
by the judicial system thereby preventing social disintegration

● Latency or pattern maintenance- maintenance of the basic pattern of

values institutionalised in the society

Institutions of socialisation/fiduciary system- like family, edu insti,

religion perform this function by transmitting the norms/values to actors,
allowing it to be internalised by them

❖ SS- distinct from other systems and maintains its boundary as do other systems
from each other, survives by maintaining this boundary

❖ Cybernetic Hierarchy of Control- there are inter-linkages b/w action systems,

SS linked with other systems through Energy Flow and Info Control

(Fig. 4.12 Pg. 113- NS)

❖ Despite viewing SS as a system of interaction, he didn’t take interaction as the

fundamental unit in studying the SS.

Basic unit of SS- status-role complex which is defined by the structure, not
individual.

Status- structural position within SS and role- action done by an actor in

such a position seen in the context of its functional significance for the system.

Therefore, Structure over individual

❖ Social Change- occurs due to change in energy flow or info control, equilibrium
stage is disturbed. Restored by:
● Socialisation
● Social Control
❖ SC (another view)- change in terms of evolution from simple-complex societies
 ❖ Criticism:
● Grand functional theory with little practical utility, low on testability.
Dahrendorf- a utopian conception
● Over-socialised view of man taken
● Merton- futile and sterile grand conception, took realistic view (latent
functions, dysfunctions)
● Marxists- functionalism neglects class conflicts/class antagonism
● Turner- obsessed with integration

❖ Example of AGIL framework- insurgency in tribal areas:

● Poverty- result of adaptation prob to eco. system
● Goal attainment marred by vested interests
● Deprived people- alienated hence not integrated in cultural system
● Stress and lack of motivation- tension mgmt problems by institutions like
family

Pattern Variables

❖ Conflict b/w motivational & value orientations gives rise to this, which can be
resolved by:
● Role institutionalisation
● Role internalisation

❖ They are choices b/w alternative variables while performing roles- which are
necessary to achieve certain goals
❖ It bridges the gap b/w SAs and SSs
❖ They structure any system of interaction
❖ Exist in 5 pairs (ADAPCO):
1. Affectivity vs Affective Neutrality
2. Diffuseness v/s specificity
3. Ascription v/s Achievement
4. Particularism v/s universalism
5. Self- Orientation v/s Collective Orientation
❖ Choices of one pattern over other- dictated by cultural values and institutionalised
norms
❖ They also represent 2 dichotomies- traditional & modern society
❖ On basis of PV, identified 4 types of structures of SSs:
1. Universalistic Achievement pattern- modern American society
 2. Universalistic Ascription pattern- Nazi Germany
3. Particularistic Achievement pattern- classical Chinese family
4. Particularistic Ascription pattern- Caste system in India
❖ Significance of PV-
● helps in distinguishing b/w types of societies
● provide direction in which members choose their roles

Robert Merton

❖ Neo- functionalist (deals not only with theoretical work but also empirical reality)
❖ Modified earlier functionalist view and 3 critical postulates of earlier functionalists:
● Postulate of functional unity- this assumption states that any part of the
SS is functional for the entire system. All parts of society seen to work
together for maintenance of integration in society- emphasised upon by
the likes of Durkheim, Spencer & Radcliffe Brown.

Merton- this functional unity is doubtful in today’s complex, highly

differentiated societies. Eg- religious pluralism today may tend to divide
the society. Functional unity is a matter of degree the extent of which
must be found by the investigator instead of assuming its existence at the
outset.

Idea of FU- change in a part of a system- automatically results in a

change in the other parts- this is a matter of investi acc to Merton. In a
highly differentiated society, institutions may have a high degree of
‘functional autonomy’- change in 1 may have lil/no effect on other(s)

● Postulate of functional indispensability-earlier view- there are some

indispensable functions to be performed for the society (Brown-
necessary conditions, Parsons- functional prerequisites/AGIL) & some
social institutions indispensable to perform them.

Merton-- a range of alternative institutions (functional equivalents/

functional alternatives) may meet the same functional prerequisites.For
eg- creche, today, can perform the function of socialisation (alternative to
family)

● Postulate of universal functionalism- belief of earlier functionalists-

existing social & cultural forms are invariably functional & fulfil some +ve
function(s).

Merton- functional analysis should proceed from the assumption- any

part of society may be functional, dysfunctional or non-functional and the
units for which they are f/d/n must be specified (units may be individuals,
groups or society,as a whole). Eg- poverty- d for the poor, f for the
non-poor.

UF should be replaced with ‘provisional assumption that persisting

cultural norms have a net balance of functional consequence either
for society or sub-groups sufficiently powerful to retain these forms
intact through direct coercion or indirect persuasion’.
 ❖ He claimed that his framework of functional analysis removed the charge-
functionalism is ideologically based. Parts of the society should be analysed in
terms of their ‘effects’ or ‘consequences’ on society as a whole & on indi/groups
within the society- these effects can be f/d/n.
❖ Developed his own functional paradigm (Pg. 245-247, Ritzer) (a
methodological push to functional analysis)- guide to integration of theory and
research. Conditions of paradigm:
● Social items- must be in a standardised pattern i.e a repetitive item (ex-
social roles, institutional patterns, social norms, devices for social control
etc.), not be too abstract or too concrete.
● Social context of study- specified clearly, meaning of social item
changes with context. Boundaries of study to be specified
● General description of social item be made using available info to get
clues of its functions.
● Non functions (consequences irrelevant to the system under
consideration, ex- social forms existing since historical times, they
might’ve +ve or -ve consequences in the past but have no contemporary
utility) should also be highlighted
● Identification of manifest and latent functions

(NOTE- latent functions and unanticipated consequences are not always

the same, UC can be non-functional or dysfunctional too- Pg. 247, Ritzer)

● Dysfunctions should be studied, early analysts tended to confuse

subjective motives of individuals with functions of structures/institutions,
one SF can have a -ve consequence for another SF (ex- salvery in
southern US)
● Functional alternatives should also be highlighted
● Calculate the Net Balance after accounting for M&L functions,
dysfunctions through levels of functional analysis to finally determine
whether a phenomena is functional or not
● Presence of dysfunctions- presence of conflict, replacement with
functional alternatives- resolution of conflict (change),not all structures are
indispensable today hence some can be eliminated also

Latent and Manifest Functions

❖ This approach combined psychological and socio-cultural aspects

❖ Difference b/w two can also be seen as difference b/w- conscious intention
and actual outcome
❖ Manifest function:
● Actual intention of the actor
● Subjective dispositions of the actor
● Micro aspect of reality
● Studied through a Non-Positivist approach
❖ Latent function:
● Neither intended nor perceived by actor
● Objective manifestations of actions of actor
● Mostly include- dysfunctions, non-functions and unanticipated functions
❖ Examples- Karl Marx on family, slavery, Hopi tribes of C. America (in STSS)
❖ Thorstein Veblen (Theory of Leisure Class)- example of conspicuous
consumption of cars
❖ Utility of M&L functions:
 ● Understanding of why irrational practices continue to exist
● Eliminate naive moral judgements from research

Middle Range Theories

❖ Proposed in wake of apparent failure of grand functional theories

❖ Middle path b/w micro (less practical utility) and macro (too ambitious) theories
❖ Focus:
● Limited set of assumptions
● Derivation of specific hypothesis
● Empirically testable
❖ Bridged gap b/w raw empiricism (ethnographic) and grand theories (abstract
generalisations)
❖ They are a triple alliance of:
1. Theory
2. Data (primary and secondary, both used)
3. Method (functional paradigm is the method to be used)
❖ Advantages:
● Scientific nature
● Testability (we have data)
● Empirical
● Practically applicable
● Less time consuming and less costly
❖ Disadvantages:
● Identification of middle range phenomena challenging (hard to see what is
M.R. phenomena) so subjectivity creeps in
● Limited scope of framing universal theory

Conformity and Deviance (Merton’s Strain Theory)

❖ Conformity- action oriented to social norms or expectations. Its causes are:

● Socialisation
● Hierarchy in society
● Laws and rules
● Ideology
● religion
❖ Deviance- non conformity or deviating from accepted path.
● May be positively sanctioned (Nobel Prize) or negatively sanctioned
(punishment for crime).
● Deviant in one society may be normal in other (ex- Teton Sioux Indians of
USA) (Homosexuality)
● 2 main approaches of dealing with it- psych and socio
● Causes:
★ Sub-cultural characteristics (cultural shock, give nirbhaya rape
example)
★ Faulty socialisation
★ Parental deprivation (Robert G. Andry: Male children who have
hostile relation with their father usually show hostility to others)
★ Differential opportunities
❖ John Bowlby in his study of 44 juvenile thieves found that chronic recidivists (tendency
to reoffend) (juvenile delinquents) have a habitual tendency to commit crime. Even if
they are punished they continue to commit crime. He found that most juvenile
 delinquents lacked intimate relations with their mother in their childhood. They become
indifferent to the pain & sufferings of others.
❖ Theory explained in- ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ and ‘STSS’ , name of the
essay- ‘The Paradigm of Deviance’
❖ Theory of Deviance based on Merton’s conception of anomie drawn in the
backdrop of The Great Eco Depression
❖ Differences b/w his and Durkheim’s idea of anomie (Pg. 118., Table on Pg. 121-
NS)
❖ American Dream example- Pg. 118, NS
❖ Structural Strain- structural means of an individual incompatible with goals
considered desirable by the society- creates a feeling of deprivation and hence
produces Deviance
❖ 5 Adaptive responses:
1. Conformist- accepts both goals and means despite their utility and
fairness (school students)
2. Innovator- accepts goals, rejects means (scientists and thieves)
3. Ritualist- accepts socially understandable means, fails to understand
goals (Bureaucrats)
4. Retreatist- rejects both means and goals (addicts, alcoholics, vagrants)
5. Rebellion- first rejects goals and means, then creates new goals and
means (social reformers)

(Refer- diagrams on Pg. 119, Pg. 120, NS)

EXCEPT FOR THE 1ST ONE, REST ARE ANOMIC RESPONSES

❖ Theory of Deviance impt due to the following reasons:

● Represents a middle range phenomena
● Highlights unintended consequences of culturally defined goals and
means- in terms of dysfunctions
● Idea of anomie- criticism of process of stratification in society (seen as
functional by earlier structural functionalists- like D&M)

❖ Criticism of anomie/deviance:
● Howard Becker- deviance not an intrinsic quality, one is labelled as such
● Lemert and Laurie Taylor- powerful decide who is deviant
● Only refers to goals and means- other aspects of social structure may
also cause anomie
● Albert Cohen- deviance is due to a specific subculture hence collective
and not individual
● ALBERT COHEN, Merton’s theories can explain only Pecuniary deviance i.e.
directed towards financial gains. It doesn’t explain senseless violence,
vandalism, and non-pecuniary deviance. Such kind of deviance is a safety
valve from frustration. In the case of poor and slum dwellers borne out of
frustration, mainstream cultural goals are of no use. Deviance acts as a safety
valve to them.
● Chicago School- ecological approach- deviance levels differ from
place to place depending on relative eco prosperity and other factors
● According to WALTER MILLAR, criminals are not always those who failed to
gain legitimate opportunity in the structure. They may do deviant acts out of
thrill i.e. to become smart-pick pocketing, boxing etc.
 ● According to DAVID MATZA, there is a minor difference between criminals and
non-criminals. Even deviants believe in the values of society. Most of the time,
they try to disown the responsibility for example – they argue that ‘everybody is
corrupt only I am caught’. Resorting to techniques of neutralisation deviants show
partial acceptance of societal norms. In his theory of delinquent drift Matza
argues that young people flow with deviant behaviour. Crimes become a way of
overcoming the mood fatalism i.e. feeling of utterly helpless

Deviancy Amplification

❖ A theory that suggests- deviancy in a society- unintended consequence of police

control, over-reaction 7 labelling by mass media & popular reaction to deviant
stereotypes.
❖ Term coined by- Leslie T Wilkins in ‘Social Deviance’
❖ Ex of DA- among Afro-Americans. When there are instances of robbery or gun
violence in A-A neighbourhoods, media exaggerates the incident as-
representation of the community instead of an ind case of deviance, neighbours
projected as hostile- further intensification of such deviant behaviour

Contrastingly, when a white neighbour does shooting in a white neighbourhood-

incident downplayed & represented as an ind incident- preventing any form of
misinfo from spreading through media into the consuming public
 ❖ Concept- relevant in understanding that the media’s coverage of incidents affects
society’s reaction towards targeted groups -vely. Blowing up issues by the media
can create panic among masses leading to ostracisation of an entire community
due to deviance of a few miscreants.
❖ When used tactically by the ones in power- can be used as a method to distract
the public from far more impt issues in society.

Reference Group

❖ As a concept, first appeared in- ‘Archives of Psychology’ of Herbert Hyman

but Merton first added a functional dimension to it in his ‘Contribution to the
Theory of Reference Group Behaviour’
❖ Theory inspired from Samule Stouffer’s- ‘The American Soldier’- highlights
feeling of relative deprivation of soldier despite none in terms of actual hardship

❖
❖ RG- group with which one always compares to evaluate one’s achievements,
aspirations, role performance and ambition
❖ Shibutani described RG as "A collectivity of individuals , real or imagined, envied
or despised, whose perspective is assumed by the actor."
❖ Difference b/w RG and Interaction Group- which are more general part of
individual’s social environment but may neither set normative standards nor a
standard of comparison
❖ Can be of 2 types:
● Membership Groups
● Non- Membership Groups
❖ Can be of 2 more types- +ve (person wishes to join) or -ve (person wishes to
avoid)
❖ Anticipatory socialisation- individual starts behaving like members of
aspirational RG to facilitate easy merger with it (ex- Sanskritization)
● Dysfunctional aspect of it- in closed systems, individual becomes a pariah
in own social group and fails to enter RF, reduced to a marginal man
❖ Factors that make a group RG:
● Power and prestige
● Isolation in membership group
● Open v/s closed group
● Reference individual/ role model in a group
❖ RG don’t remain same always, since choice depends on quality of norms and
values interesting to a person, as these interests change the RG also changes
❖ Difference in RGs chosen by difft generations- Generation Gap

❖ Reference group theory - a research found that in urban China, knowing high-status
people was detrimental to mental health. This was true whether people knew mostly
 high-status people, any high-status people or even just many people of comparatively
higher- status than themselves.
Two competing theories for how the status of the people we know affects our mental
health:
• The first theory, social capital theory, centres on resources: The more
resources the people in your personal network have, the more you will benefit from
them.
• The second theory, comparative reference group theory, centres on
comparison: The more status others in your network have than you, the worse you
will feel about yourself.

(Self-Fulfilling Prophecy- Pg. 123, NS)

G. H. Mead

❖ Known for developing an evolutionary theory combining body, mind, self and
society- cosmological evolutionary theory or a pragmatist approach
❖ Ideas in- ‘Mind, Self and Society’
❖ Traditional social psycho- psycho of the individual to explain social experience;
Mead- priority to social world in understanding social experience
❖ Social group comes 1st- leads to development of self-conscious mental states
❖ Gesture:
● Basic mechanism in the social act and in the social process
● Can be:
★ Significant (significant symbol)- requires thought on the actor's
part before a reaction. Vocal gestures impt in their development
but not all of them (ex- mindless grunt)
★ Non-significant- unconscious actions
● Physical gestures (non-vocal)- we can’t see or hear what we’re doing
hence not ideally suited to be significant symbols
● Vocal gestures- we hear ourselves just as others do. Affects the speaker
in a similar way as the listener, We’re also better able to stop ourselves
(greater control)
● Makes adjustment possible among individuals
❖ Significant Symbols:
● Gesture becomes significant when it arouse in the individual who’s
making it the same response that they’re supposed to elicit from those to
whom it’s addressed (ex- hello)
● Impt. function- make mind, mental processes possible
❖ Language:
● Set of vocal gestures most likely to becomes significant symbols
● Call out the same response in the individual who’s making it as it does in
others (ex- word like ‘cat’ or ‘dog’ will ignite a similar image in the minds
of speaker & the listener)
● Stimulates the person speaking as it does others (ex- person yelling ‘fire’
in a crowded theatre is at least motivated to leave the theatre as much as
those to whom the shout is addressed, so SS allow people to be
stimulators of their own actions)
● Make human thinking possible; we can think beyond the limited due to
language
● SS in general, language in particular, make SI possible- people can
interact with 1 another not just through gestures but also SS- making
possible much more complex interaction patterns & forms of organisation
than would be possible through gestures alone
 ❖ Mind:
● Is a process, not a thing; it’s an inner conversation with one’s self
● Not an intracranial thing (as is generally considered) but a social
phenomena
● Social process precedes it (and not the other way round), mind develops
as humans engage in social processes, it arises & develops within the
social process & forms an integral part of it
● Can be distinguished from other similar sounding concepts in
Mead’s theory like- consciousness by its distinctive characteristic-
ability to respond to overall community and put forth an organised
response
● It involves thought processes oriented towards problem solving

Self

❖ Peculiar ability to be both object and subject

❖ Self is a process, not a thing
❖ It presupposes a social process, communication, among humans
❖ Lower animals & human infants don’t have selves
❖ It arises through social activity and social relationships
❖ Once, developed it can continue to exist without a social contact
❖ Is dialectically related to the mind:
● Body- not a self but becomes one when mind has developed
● On the other hand, self with its reflexiveness- essential to development of
mind

C.H.Cooley- Self & society are twin-born

❖ General mechanism for development of self- reflexivity (ability to put oneself

unconsciously into place of others and act as they do)
● To have self- individuals must get out themselves and become object to
themselves for evaluation
★ For this- people put themselves in same experiential field as
they put everyone else
★ Cannot experience themselves directly but indirectly by
putting in position of others (individual or a social group) and
viewing themselves

(reflexivity- Pg. 125, NS)

❖ Genesis of self through 2 stages:

1. Play Stage-
● Children learn to take attitude of discrete others
● Lower animals also play but humans play by being someone else
● Child- becomes both subject and object- starts building of self
● It’s a limited self (only taking roles of distinct others)
● Lack general and organised sense of themselves
● Lack definite personalities
2. Game Stage-
● Child takes role of generalised others
● Definite personality starts emerging
● Children- start learning to function in organised groups and what
they’ll do in a specific group
 ● To have self- 1 must be a member of a community & be directed
by attitudes common to the community
● While play requires only pieces of selves, the game requires
a coherent self.
❖ Generalised other-
● Attitude of the entire community
● Ability to take the role of GO- essential in the development of self
● Only when we take roles of the GO that we become full members of
society
● Allows abstract thinking and objectivity
● Shows Mead’s inclination- priority to existing social world (through GO,
the group influences behaviour of individuals)
❖ Pragmatic view of self-
● At individual level- allows individual to be an efficient member of the
society by doing what society expects of them
● Allows greater coordination- individuals can be counted on to do what’s
expected of them so the group & society at large can function more
efficiently & effectively.
❖ Actors not conformists and no lacking of individuality-
● Each self difft from all others
● No one grand GO, but many as many groups there in society
● Hence, people have multiple GO and, as a result, multiple selves
● Need not accept community as it is, people can reform things
★ To stand up to the GO, individual must construct a larger GO
composed of not only present but also the past and future and
then respond to it (dynamism in concept of self) (Pg. 354, R)
❖ Mead’s theory of self (EPCE)-
● Empirical
● Pragmatist
● Cosmological
● Evolutionary

❖
I and Me

❖ I-
 ● Immediate response of individuals to others
● Incalculable, unpredictable, creative aspect of self
● We’re never totally aware of it in advance and know it after completion of
the act
● Initiates change
● Storehouse of novelty and creativity
● Mead stressed on ‘I’ for following reasons:
★ It’s the key source of novelty in the social processes & makes
individual dynamic which otherwise sounds conformist to society
★ Our most impt values located in I
★ It’s the realisation of self- something we all seek;permits us to
develop a definite personality
★ Evolutionary process- primitive people dominated by Me while
modern by I
● I gave dynamism to Mead’s theory
❖ Me-
● Mead- it’s the organised set of attitudes of others which 1 himself
assumes
● Also called social self
● Adoption of GO
● Is conventional and habitual
● We are conscious of Me
● Promotes status quo
● Storehouse of conformity
❖ I and me- contrasting natures. I reacts against Me
❖ Social control- dominance of the expression of Me over that of I
❖ Pragmatic view-
● Me allows individuals to live comfortably in social world, I makes change
possible
● Me gives conformity to society and I infuses new developments
(otherwise society will stagnate)
● I and me- allow both individuals and society to function effectively

Mead’s criticism:

● Ignores genetic influence on human attitude

● Ropers- Mead sees social activities as discrete episodes without
historical continuity
● Fails to elaborate origin of meanings

CHAPTER-5 Stratification and Mobility

❖ Differences created by nature, man creates inequalities

❖ Inequalities exist in a specific pattern- understood through the process of
stratification
❖ Social Stratification- a process in which social inequalities exist in the form of
structural hierarchical strata, 1 placed above the other
❖ Social stratification is a process through which groups and
social categories are ranked as higher or lower to one another
in terms of their relative position on the scales of prestige,
wealth and power.
❖ Sutherland and Maxwell- As a process of differentiation, which places some
people higher than the others
 ❖ SS, as a process, can be visualised through the 4 sub processes:
● Differentiation- exist socially and naturally in every society
● Evaluation- differences evaluated in terms of prestige, desirability etc.
Leads to feelings of superiority and inferiority among people with
differences
● Ranking- people sharing common characteristics evaluated in terms of
desirability and undesirability. Differences and inequalities don’t exist in
an objective state but compared
● Rewarding- rewards and punishments to people of different strata further
reinforcing stratification
❖ Strata may be closed or open (mobility not possible in closed, like caste
system),(bureaucracy- open stratification in modern society)
❖ Classified into 4 forms by T. B. Bottomore
● Slavery- earliest form of social stratification
★ Legally recognised division of society into slaves and citizens
★ Citizenship rights to citizens, none to slaves
★ Existed in most parts of Europe (500-600 BCE)
● Estate system- result of development of feudalism
★ Include serfs, clergy and feudal lords/nobility
★ Nobility- defends all, clergy-prays for all, serfs/commoners-
provide food for all
★ Clergy and feudal lords controlled economy and oppressed serfs
● Caste- stratification in which occupation, status, rights fixed at birth
● Social Classes- origin in feudal estates of Europe
★ Consequence of economic factors
★ Marx- MoP shapes it
★ Diverse classifications by difft. thinkers
★ Greater degree of mobility allowed than other stratifications

Equality and Inequality

Inequality

❖ Differences (natural or social)→value attachment (social evaluation)→ social

stratification
❖ Social inequalities- patterns of unequal access to social resources
❖ Persistence of inequality and quest for equality is the essence of human society
universally.
❖ G D Berreman- out of differentiation of persons, which is a natural & universal
phenomena, inequality or social evaluation of differences arises
❖ Inequality is also unequal access to social resources; these resources divisible
into 4 forms of capital- Pierre Bourdieu
1. Economic- material assets and income
2. Cultural- educational qualifications and status
3. Social- networks/contacts and social associations
4. Symbolic- social status and good reputation, reflected in pattern of
behaviour and taste

Often these overlap, one can be converted into another

 Social capital- Pg. 134, NS

❖ Inequalities have existed since long. Rousseau identified two types-

natural/physical and moral/political
❖ Classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle justified social
inequalities on the basis of natural inequalities. Plato
differentiated between Men of Gold (rulers), Silver (traders and
adventurers) and Iron (commoners)- non interchangeable roles - by
birth different degrees of qualities.who he believed were chosen by
nature to take up different occupations. Aristotle was opposed to
granting citizenship rights to women and slaves.
❖ Political thinkers like Pareto, Mosca and Michels assigned
primacy to power as the real source of inequality in society.
According to them, power is the ability to make others do what
they do not want to do and the elite groups exercise this power
as they occupy the top positions within the institutions of a given
society.
❖ Marx views unequal access to the forces of production as the source of social
inequality.
❖ Another classification of inequality:
● Of power
● Of material well-being
❖ Occur at micro and macro level (globally nations divided as 1st world and 3rd
world countries- Dependency theory, World Systems theory of Wallerstein) both.
❖ Functionalists- inequalities are inevitable to ensure all jobs of society get done.
They are a result of unequal capabilities of people, hence unequal rewards
● Criticised by Wilkinson and Pickett- it’s dysfunctional for society (high
mistrust, no cooperation and harmony)
❖ Goran Therborn-
● Causes- both collective and individual actions and structures and social
actions also cause it
● Consequences- premature death, illness, humiliation, loss of human
rights, powerlessness, dehumanisation
● To deal- counter exclusion of poor from everyday life and seclusion of
elite from the public
❖ Thomas Hobbes - Everyone wants power and privileges - chaos, so need rules -
"Social Contract" under which people give the right to one man to rule, who has
collective desire and will.
❖ Raymond Aron - absence of economic inequality in society does not imply death or
complete absence of inequality in society. Inequality exists in multiple forms.

Socialist states like the USSR - economic inequality was replaced by political inequality -
rule of oligarchs. Welfare states like India see an interventionist approach by the state to
redistribute benefits. Does not cause equality, but makes inequality more bearable

Political inequality institutionalised in socialism, economic inequality in capitalism.

❖ Measured by Ginni coefficient

❖ Excessive inequalities (in communist or capitalist societies)- undesirable, source
of- unrest, conflict
❖ Measures- India’s DPSPs, Art 39A, Reservations, progressive taxation in
countries, SS schemes
Equality

❖ Peter Saunders- classified equality as:

● Formal/legal- de-facto in modern democracies but not followed in
practice (Art 14 in India)
● Equality of opportunity- symbol of merit based society. all people have
an equal chance to become unequal. Individuals compete for success
and those with greater merit achieve more. Imperfectly followed.
Contradicts other 2
● Equality of outcome- symbol of egalitarian society, it’s irrespective of the
efforts put in by members.
❖ RH Tawney - perfected equality is not realistic. It is dysfunctional as an individual's
merit will not be recognized and is bad for the society. Depending on the means and
facilities available, one should go for practical equality.

❖ SC’s observation wrt equality in the recent ruling on AIQ in med admissions:
● Reaffirmed the principle of substantive equality, rather than formal
equality, that underlies our constitutional promise of equality of
opportunity
● Provision of res u/A 16(4)- not an exception to but an extension of the
principle of equality enunciated in Art 16(1)
● Recognised the role of cultural capital- ensures that a child is trained
unconsciously by the familial envt to take up higher edu/posts
commensurate with their fam’s standing- this works to the disadvantage
of 1st gen learners whose traditional fam occupation do not result in
transmission of skills reqd to perform in an open exam

Hierarchy

According to the sociologists, hierarchy prevailed in societies based on castes or estates

and social inequalities were legitimated as naturally given. Stratification, on the other
hand, is a feature of modern industrial societies in which inequalities do exist but are not
considered as a part of natural or divine order. In this process of social change, inequality
did not vanish or reduce, but changed its nature.
The concept of hierarchy denotes that people in a society are graded or ranked differently
depending upon the type of statuses that they occupy, according to some criterion of
evaluation accepted as relevant within the system.

❖ Derived from word- ‘hierarcha’- ‘having rule in holy things or among the holy
ones’. Thus, denotes a social arrangement that attains a divine legitimation
(causes rigidity), It is usually an ascription based, closed system, marked by
social and cultural reproduction.
❖ CH Cooley states that the Varna system of the early Vedic period appears to be
an open class system of stratification. ‘The Divine Origin theory’ made it closed
resulting in social hierarchy. Similarly, the estate system of mediaeval Europe,
was viewed as divinely ordained and hence hierarchical.
❖ Weber does not subscribe to the divine origin belief, and states that there are
three axes of stratification in any society - power, prestige and wealth
● However, when the other two axes are dependent and
derived from the third axis, the society will effectively
 contain a single axis of stratification. This will result in a
rigid and hierarchical system.
❖ Inequalities→stratification→hierarchy
❖ Functionalists- symbol of rising DoL, necessary for working of social system

The exercise of power and authority and the control of people and resources become
organised in a hierarchical way - bureaucracy.

❖ Post modernists- western societies now have a continuum of individualised

inequalities, hence infinite strata and numerous hierarchies
❖ One individual- part of multiple hierarchies (varies from place to place)
❖ Modern democracies-equal opportunity, abhor hierarchy based on status (rule of
law has given equal status to everyone)- just political facilitation of equality,
inequality still exists in social and eco spheres
❖ Hierarchy→unequal opportunities→unequal rewards→reinforcement of hierarchy
❖ Marxists- a dominant class design hostile to a classless society as it promotes
conflict
❖ Dipankar Gupta elaborates that capitalist or open market systems are prone to
become hierarchical. If health and education are left in the hands of market
forces, people in the lower classes will have limited access to avail the best of
these services. Thus, they will have little opportunity to improve their class, status
or party position

Thus, hierarchy is marked by exclusion and inclusion whereas stratification is

marked by differences and inequalities.

❖ Positive view- viewed in value-neutral terms also, is a necessity in work

organisation:
● Direction to collective efforts
● Ensures execution of orders

No organisation’s there without formal or informal hierarchy.

Tight in some (army), loose in others (startups)

Poverty

❖ A social problem expressed in terms of lack of material resources reqd for a min
standard of life.
❖ 2 broad views- of sociologist (multidimensional concept considering many
aspects of human well-being) and of economist (lack of eco resources)
❖ Other perspective-
● Absolute- measured in terms of a benchmark (ex- poverty line) but it
addresses only subsistence needs
● Relative- culturally defined, measured in terms of relative deprivation-
pioneered by Peter Townsend
❖ three conceptions of poverty:
1. Poverty as a subsistence issue - inability to
obtain the minimum necessities for maintenance
of merely physical efficiencies. Per capita calorie
intake is the measure deployed.
2. Poverty as an issue of basic needs (termed as
multidimensional poverty by Amartya Sen) - a
 state where the individual lacks the necessary
physical goods like clothing, shelter and access to
services like education, sanitation and healthcare.
It is measured on the basis of per capita
consumption on such basic human needs by a
family.
3. Relative deprivation - refers to lack of
resources or social conditions when compared
with that of other members in the society.
❖ The 18th century writings of Sir John Sinclair and Sir Frederick
Eden observe that poverty is a social problem.

Herbert Spencer did not share this view and believed it was
unnatural to help those engaged in ‘dissolute living’ to avoid the
consequences of their actions. Those who’re too lazy to work
should not be allowed to eat
❖ Major theories describing poverty:
1. Blame the poor vs blame the system
2. The cultural perspective
3. As a +ve feedback system or a vicious circle
4. Stratification theories
5. Dialectical approach
6. Poverty and power thesis
7. Feminist view
8. Dependency theory
❖ Gender dimension to poverty- feminization of poverty, pink
collarization
❖ Ethnic and religious dimension- India’s example
❖ It has been said that the urban poor of India are only an overflow of the rural poor into
the cities and that essentially they belong to the same class as the rural poor - Dandekar
and Rath, 1971.
❖ Minority groups across the globe- more prone to poverty
● America’s example. The sociologist William J Wilson (1987), himself a black
has drawn attention to what he calls ‘the truly disadvantaged’. These in his view
should be defined not so much in terms of race as in terms of a combination of
economics, demographic and social characteristics such as joblessness, broken
families, teenage pregnancy, out-of-wedlock births and violent crimes
● Alcock- disabled not only suffer from high degree of poverty but also
social exclusion because disability has extra eco and social costs along
with it
❖ Amartya Sen’s capability theory of development is simple and revolves
around 2 things: People and their Capabilities. For Sen, development
means expansion of people’s capabilities. Freedom is a vital element of
the individual centric capability approach (CA) of development. “The
purpose of development is to enrich human lives, not the richness of the
economy which is only a part of it.” Poverty must be seen as the
deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely the lowness of
incomes. For Sen “capability deprivation” is a better measure of poverty
than lowness of income
❖ Marxist view of poverty - due to concentration of wealth, profit motive -
so wages low, money as a motivation to work, labour competes for jobs
so help to keep the wages low

Kincaid says the state will take no action to change the low wage
system, poverty persists because social security provision is ineffective.
 It is not simply that there are rich and poor. It is rather that some are rich
because some are poor.

Westergard and Resler - though the ruling class has responded to the
demands of the labour movement by allowing creation of a welfare state,
the system operates within a framework of institutions and assumptions
that remain capitalist. Poverty is not an individual condition, it is a class
phenomenon - need wholesale change in general structure of inequality,
not just living wages dole.

❖ Weberian poverty - class situation depends on market situation, the

favour and rewards his skills and expertise can command in a
competitive market, the ability of individuals and groups to influence the
labour market in their own favour so as to maximise the rewards they
receive. The low paid have few skills or qualifications and this hampers
their ability to command higher wages, and keeps them poor.

Kincaid - wages depend on bargaining power of workers - some

sections have no power.

Ralph Miliband - the poor are part of the working class but they are
largely excluded from the organisations that have been developed to
defend the interests of the working class.

❖ Functionalist poverty - Herbert J. Gans

❖ Despite various theoretical perspectives and solutions, poverty
still exists. Welfare state- failed in promise of redistribution
❖ Way out:
● Food should be ensured (Pennsylvania researchers,
food security)
● Employment (give ex of govt schemes)
● Education (give ex of govt schemes)
● Removing constraints on govt services
★ Check political corruption
★ Tax havens should be curtailed
★ Conditionality of multilateral institutions (WB, IMF)
and other countries shouldn’t be allowed
● Min income guarantee and SS schemes
● Business of poverty (C. K Prahlad, Pg. 138- NS)

Exclusion

❖ A situation in which multiple deprivations prevent individuals from

participating in important areas of social activities
❖ It is:
● Multidimensional- encompasses social, political, cultural and economic
dimensions, and operates at various social levels.
● Dynamic- impacts people in various ways and to different degrees across
different times
● Relational- product of unequal power relations in society which can
produce rupture in relationships between people thereby affecting social
integration
❖ UNDP defines social exclusion as the non-recognition of basic civil and social
rights.
❖ Ruth Lister in ‘Poverty’- ways in which individuals may be cut
off from full involvement in wider society or prevention of
individuals/groups from having the same opportunities as are
available to the majority of the population (also read- box, Pg.
139-NS)
❖ Mary Daly- it’s wider than poverty as it talks about not just
resource availability but also participation in various social
processes
❖ David Byrne- subject/object perspective
❖ Not accidental, but systematic- result of structural features of
society
❖ Promoted by stratification and inequalities
❖ Has multiple dimensions, some of which are:
● Exclusion of social rights (criminalization of
homosexuality)
● Labour market exclusions (under/unemployment)
● Service exclusion (casteism, racism)
● Exclusion from social relations
● On cultural basis (apartheid)
● Active or passive exclusion (a dimension given by
Amartya Sen)
❖ Dalits, tribals, women- suffer from multiple forms of exclusions in
India
❖ Roffee and Waling- LGBTQ+ students subjected to anti-social
behaviour
❖ Prolonged discriminatory behaviour- produces reaction on the
part of excluded who stop trying for inclusion (temple entry ban to
Dalits, build their own temples) (ex- Dravidians started employing
own priests, self-respect movement)
❖ In presence of legislations enacted to curb exclusions, practised
in latent forms (against Dalits, LGBTQ, women, racism in US-
hence BLM)
❖ Weber saw it as a way of social closure, where one group
attempts to secure for itself a privileged position, by excluding
some other group from the same.Can be voluntarily practiced by
affluent- exclusive clubs, gated communities, celebs don’t mix
with public
❖ Exclusion in modern times-
● Economic- rural-urban divide, unequal wages, absolute
poverty etc.
● Political- lack of accountability, dynastic politics
● Social- gender bias, edu inequality, old age
● Digital- digital divide (manifested during COVID in terms
of unequal access to remote edu by children)

❖
 ❖ Marx saw alienation as a process of exclusion at four levels - peers, product,
process and self.
❖ Sometimes it can also be an individual exclusion as opposed
to collective social exclusion. This can be due to the presence
of socially undesirable traits in a particular individual. It can take
the form of discrimination, for example: HIV patients, leprosy
patients, or may be a reaction against socially viewed deviancy,
for example: criminals.
❖ Exclusion is not always deprivation and inclusion is not always justice - women
Sabarimala temple entry v/s glass ceiling
❖ Brian Barry - individuals or groups are socially excluded if they are denied the
opportunity of participation, whether they actually desire to participate or not. Lack of job
opportunities among the adults in an area tends to depress scholastic motivation and
thus contributes to poor educational outcomes that condemn the next generation to
extremely limited opportunities in their turn.
❖ Anthony Giddens - homelessness is one of the worst forms of social exclusions.
❖ Repercussions of social exclusion can also include deviance, retreatism, rebellion and
even crime. Elliott Currie - exclusion leads to delinquent behaviour.
❖ Conclusion- Steps to curb:
● RTE
● MGNREGA
● Reservations
● Article 17
● Positive discriminatory measures undertaken by the govt.

Deprivation

❖ Defined as inequality of access to social goods. It includes poverty and wider

forms of disadvantage. It refers to a condition in which people lack what they
need - economic and emotional support generally accepted as basic essentials of
human experience.
❖ Pierre Bourdieu- it’s lack of adequate eco, social, cultural and symbolic capital
❖ Exclusion- is from social participation, deprivation- is of resources
❖ One may face it despite good eco conditions- people in war torn areas of Africa
and W.Asia, cultural norms can also cause- in some Islalmic countries, women
denied many rights
❖ Can be:
● Absolute- lack of even basic necessities (extreme poverty,
marginalisation, hunger)
● Relative- is a subjective term, and is intimately linked to the reference
group. It denotes lack of resources or social conditions as compared to
the reference group - Merton

❖
 The concept of relative deprivation is used in the study of social
movements and revolutions, where it is argued that relative, and
not absolute deprivation is more likely to lead to the pressure for
social change.

❖ Material deprivation in EU- Pg. 141, NS

❖ Marxists- it’s due to unequal nature of society marked by unequal control over
forces of production

Theories of social stratification

Structural Functionalist

❖ It is made up of two conjoined parts- structure(s) (that of the society) +

functionalism (functions of a variety of social processes); still the concern for both
elements characterises SFm
❖ Although it takes various forms, dominant approach is that of societal
functionalism- existence of various stratas in society seen in terms of
interdependence, cooperation and serving function of integrating the society
❖ Contributors:
1. Parsons-
● we have a consensus based society in terms of norms/values
● Conformity to these norms- desirable, hence rewarded
● Differential conformity and rewards form strata
● People follow norms and compare their performance vis-a vis
these norms, ↑conformity= ↑rewards= ↑rank
● Stratification facilitates fulfillment of functional prerequisites
● Acknowledged existence of inequality but considered it as a result
of differential achievement
● Criticism:
★ Which values are more impt?- unclear (Parsons says
varies from 1 society to another)
★ Theory only applicable to societies with equal
opportunities to all (not India- ascriptive based)
★ No answer for what’ll happen when people will challenge
values (ex- Naxalites) or when society itself is changing
(modernization of indian tradition)
2. W L Warner-
● Emphasis on social status and not eco class
● Determinants of status- edu, occupation, income
● Other criterias- friendship, membership of voluntary group, leisure
activities
● Similar explanation for differential status as Parsons
3. Davis and Moore- formulated functionalist theory in- ‘Some Principle of
Social Stratification’
● No society which is unstratified; stratification- unconsciously
evolved device
● Stratification- not refers to individuals in the system but positions
in it
● Rewards are attached to these positions
● Some positions functionally more impt than other
● ↑reward for functionally impt positions- to attract talented people
for occupation,
 ● How a society motivates and places people in their “proper”
positions in the stratification system is reducible to 2 problems:
★ How to invoke desire in people to fill certain positions?
(ans- through prestige, salary and rewards)
★ Once occupied, how to invoke desire in people to fulfill
requirements of those positions?
● Social placement (altho applicable to all positions, they were
concerned with only functionally impt positions)- problem for 3
basic reasons:
★ Some positions more pleasant to occupy than others
★ Some more impt for survival of society
★ Different positions= difft abilities and talents
● Criticism: (Pgs. 142-143- NS, 232- R)
★ Perpetuates privileged positions of the powerful and
wealthy
★ Promotes continuity of stratified structure from past to this
day
★ Difficult to support idea of functional positions varying in
their importance (ex- garbage collector)
★ Is there an actual scarcity of talented people to occupy
positions? Or there’s artificial shortage created by elite
★ No need to offer rewards, people can be motivated
through job satisfaction and service to others also
★ Dahrendorf- originates from closely related trinity of
norms, sanction & power
★ No functional explanation for rigid caste system in India
★ Elite recruitment theory
★ Jonathan Turner- suffers from illegitimate teleologies
★ Tumin’s criticism:
➔ Objective determination of relative functional
importance of positions impossible
➔ Talent & ability- non- measurable
➔ Unequal opportunity & trainees don’t make any
significant sacrifices
➔ Rewards- not the only motivational force
➔ Dysfunctional instead of being functional- conflict
perspective as it limits the opportunity hence,
loss of talent’ promotion of a dysfunctional status
quo, chaos & lack of integration

(Structural-functional model of Merton- Pg. 245-247, R; basically criticism of 3 functional

postulates of earlier functionalists and functional paradigm)

❖ Major criticisms of SFm:

1. Substantive-
● Unable to effectively deal with the process of social change
● Unable to effectively deal with conflict
● Conservative bias because of not only what it ignores (i.e above
2) but also what it chooses to focus on- culture, norms and values
● Mistake- social reality= legitimations employed by elites in society
2. Logical-
 ● Teleology- illegitimate one is the problem
● Tautology
3. Other-
● Can’t explain rigidity of the caste system
● Dahrendorf-stratification originates from the closely related
trinity- norms, sanction and power

Marxist Theory

❖ Basis of stratification-economic inequality/economic determinism

● Conception of strata based on material factors
● In every MoP, a minority gains control over FoP and divides society into 2
strata- the haves and the have nots
● This stratification- most acute in capitalism
● Power of ruling class- ownership over FoP
● Only when FoP will be communally owned, classes will disappear
❖ Structure of stratification-

❖
❖ Marx conceptualises not only 2 broad strata but also intermediate ones- petite
bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat(lil potential of developing class
consciousness), intermediate strata will dissolve through proletarianisation and
bourgeoisisation (class polarisation)
❖ Wallerstein- haves and have nots among countries also (World Systems Theory)
❖ Consequences of stratification-
● Relationship b/w classes- mutual dependence and conflict
● Optimistic view- class struggle emerging as a result of antagonistic
relations leading to revolution and ultimately to class equality
❖ Criticism:
● Dahrendorf- Revolution is impossible as:
1. Capital will decompose- capital divided through shares and a lot
of people hold it today but capitalist was the owner as per his
theory so today we all are owner and hence capitalist in this
sense, banks are giving capital (loans) and it’s freely available
today so you can’t tell who’s the capitalist today
2. Labour will decompose- can’t tell who’s capitalist and who’s
labour today (ex- CEO. Does he own the Co?- Not necessarily.
He’s a worker in it but has the decision-making power and all
amenities so doesn’t behave like labour)
3. Welfare state has emerged- which actually works for the masses
else it cannot survive
4. Middle class will emerge- largest proportion of people constitute
this class today, so no chances of polarisation can be seen
5. There will be high social mobility in future- people will have
the opportunity, with the right skills and education, to improve their
class position
 ● Weber-
★ Inequality will increase in future- Cos. will increase with
capitalism and to manage them efficiently, bureaucrats will be
required which will enhance inequality
★ No evidence of polarization of classes as grievances of members
can be vented out in several ways
★ Middle class will swell, not deplete as predicted by Marx

Weberian Theory (Trinitarian view)

❖ Basis of stratification-
1. Class-
● Group of people in same economic situation, therefore it’s a
market or economic situation
● Economic conditions affect chances of obtaining material things
deemed desirable by the society
● Life chances differentiate different classes, similar LC= similar
class
2. Status-
● Status situation determined by +ve or -ve social estimation of
honour
● Class= unequal distribution of eco rewards, status= unequal
distribution of social honour
● Markers of status= income, family background, education,
anything considered valuable
● Class may be divided due to different status positions
● Unlike class, members of same status group aware of their
common status situation
● Most developed form of it- caste system
3. Party-
● class= eco order, status= social order and party= political order
● They are structures struggling for domination
● Constituents striving for a goal- maybe a cause or personal
(honour for leader or followers of party)
● 2 types- of patronage and of principle
● Always oriented to attainment of power
● May or may not be class or status parties or be neither of the 2
❖ Structure of stratification- on the basis of life chances, there are 4 different
classes:
1. Propertied upper class
2. Property-less white collar workers
3. Petty bourgeoisie
4. Manual working class
❖ Consequences of stratification- inequality will remain and revolution is a distant
possibility

vvv impt. - Differences b/w Marx and Weber on stratification- Pg. 145, NS

Dimensions- Social stratification of

Class

❖ The term was first used by Saint Simon as a synonym for estates
❖ There are particular characteristics of class:
● Classes are arranged in a vertical order.
 ● There is an idea of a permanent class interest
among the members of the classes.
● Idea of class consciousness and solidarity is
also present among the members.
❖ Class, in its contemporary understanding, has its origin in industrial society due to
pronouncement of wealth based inequalities then, popularised by Marx. (social
group which has a similar position vis-a-vis mode and forces of production in
terms of ownership and roles)
❖ Marx’s stratification differs from other forms in terms of following characteristics:
● Fluid and open, no legal/traditional sanctions on mobility
● Class positions- are in some part achieved & not ascribed
● Class- has an economic basis
❖ Weber- a body of people having identical position in a market situation. 4
classes:
● Propertied upper class
● Property-less white collar workers
● Petty bourgeoisie
● Manual labourers

embourgeoisement, and an expansion in the middle class. Hence,

he rejected Marx’s idea of polarisation towards 2 dichotomous classes.

❖ Giddens- sources of class power and corresponding classes

● Property possession- dominant/upper class
● Qualifications- intermediate/middle class
● Labour power- working/labour class
❖ Ralf Dahrendorf argues that classes will become more heterogeneous with time
due to specialised division of labour, and the working class will be further
bifurcated into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled
❖ Frank Parkin believes that the middle-class acts as a buffer against the
polarisation as envisioned by Marx.
❖ Goldthorpe- even in European countries, mobility limited to immediate classes,
long term mobility is difficult
❖ Ken Roberts- even in developed societies like Britain, classes not fragmented,
hold of upper has only grown stronger- most powerful but not the most dominant
❖ Ogburn and Nimkoff - a social class is the aggregate of persons having
essentially the same social status in a given society.
❖ Classes vary in consistency depending on weightage given to
ascription or achievement. In traditional societies, classes were
more consistent and less mobile due to high ascriptive
associations. Modern societies are more fluid owing to
achievement orientation.
❖ Criteria of identifying classes may differ among different scholars, but a sense of
class is ingrained in the collective consciousness and hence influences every
aspect of society.
❖ Welfare economics sees an effort to redistribute wealth through progressive
taxation, capital gain tax, estate duties, etc. Middle class and standards of living
are both growing. However, class differences still persist, much to the
disappointment of Marx

Status Groups
❖ Class- grouping based on eco criteria, members not conscious of their affiliation;
status- prestige, goodwill, fame, social capital of individuals, membership
easily traceable
❖ Traditional societies- status based on ascriptive values (caste, nobleman,
clergy, estate owner); today- both acriptive as well as achieved
❖ Status groups generally more closed than class
❖ New opportunities for mobility facilitate opening of strata; mobility in status based
groups in modern capitalist societies > mobility in less developed modern
societies
❖ Weber defined a status group as made up of individuals who are
awarded a similar amount of social honour, one of the forms of
stratification
● Unlike classes, members of status groups are almost always
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.
● By status situation, Weber refers to that part of a person's life chances, which are
decided by the social esteem in which he/she is held, such esteem might be
positive or negative. The status situation of an individual refers to the evaluations
which others make of an individual of his/her social position.
● Weber - closed community, self-perpetuating, distinctive lifestyle (status
associated with consumption and not production), more importance on respect
and esteem than wealth, maintain distinction from others - example by Weber of
Brahmins in India.
★ Here status was ascriptive, lifestyle, honour and
prestige were sharply differentiated and marriage
endogamy, commensality and occupational division of
labour acted as social closures (exclusion of some
people from membership of a status group)

★ However, MN Srinivas quotes the example of Lingayats

in Karnataka as a community that captured land and
power, asked Brahmins to prepare genealogy for them
to raise their social status to that of Brahmins from
historical times, Lingayats became supra Brahmins
while original Brahmins were subjugated . He terms this
process as Sanskritization (caste today does not
influence caste tomorrow, it is a dynamic system)so the
idea of Brahmins as a status group is wrong - Weber
had a book view, and so wrong.. Louis Dumont counters
this argument by stating that while it is easy to become
a Kshatriya in India, the same is not true for Brahmins.
They have to say Lingayat Brahmins, Proclaiming
Brahmin status and obtaining Brahmin status are two
different things, and hence Brahmins were and are a
status group.
❖ WL Warner emphasizes social status instead of economic class. He considers
education, occupation and income as determinants of status. Other criteria which
determine status are friendship, membership of voluntary groups and leisure
activities.
❖ Pakulski and Waters-
● Status- more impt in post industrial societies
● Consumption- based on status, not occupation/eco
well-being
 ● Raising consumerism has promoted status and eclipsed
class
❖ Pierre Bourdieu- lifestyle choices more impt than class today,
they are shaping individual identities and not traditional indicators
like occupation

❖ In many societies, class and status groups are related to each

other, however it is not a norm. For example: Firefighters have a
high status in American society in spite of the presence of higher
paying professions. On the other hand, nouveaux rich are
sometimes excluded from the status groups of the elite.

❖ Today, legitimacy of a person's status is always under lens,

hence, has to be justified through deeds. With the rise of civil
society, status is getting attached to nobility and transparency of
deeds. Philanthropy rather than a conspicuous display of wealth
is more respected, while status is refined and redefined as and
when new information is made available for scrutiny.

Thus, status groups are a dynamic system of social stratification in modern times.

Gender

❖ Gender- linked to socially constructed notions of masculinity and

femininity. It is not necessarily a direct product of an individual's
biological sex.
❖ Naila Kabeer- ‘biology is gendered as well as sexed’, M & F
translated as Man and Woman- on basis of mutually exclusive
masculine and feminine traits
❖ Plato placed the reproductive role of women higher than their
productive roles.
❖ One of the most fundamental forms of stratification
❖ Shulamith Firestone traces origins of gender stratification in
biological differences. She believes that women are
disadvantaged by their biology (menstruation, childbirth, feeding),
due to which their dependence on men increased, which
provided further grounds for different forms of exploitation.
❖ Gender socialization - through contact with various agencies of
socialization, both primary and secondary, children gradually
internalize the social norms and expectations which are seen to
correspond with their sex. Men and women are socialised into
different roles
❖ Attached to 2-fold stratification- in relation to men and in
relation to women; operates at 2 levels- within and outside family
❖ Unequal access to resources, opportunities, rewards, rights b/w
M and F- legitimised by patriarchy, reinforced through patriarchy
and its institutions, SDOL, social institutions (marriage, property
inheritance etc.)
❖ Sylvia Walby identifies six patriarchal structures which help men
to maintain dominance over women:
 ● Paid work - male dominated unions ensure
that women interests are kept at bay.
● Relations within household - household work
is unpaid and unvalued.
● Culture - key sign of femininity is seen to
be sexual attractiveness of a woman.
● Sexuality - sexually active women are
labelled negatively.
● Violence - final form of manifestation of dominance of men on women.
● State - policies, though have undergone changes, are still
lacking in many aspects to ensure gender equality.

Even religion has been portrayed as one of the factors

promoting patriarchy. This can be seen in the fact that
most of the deities revered in the world are males only
though one of the most important recruiters of people in
religion are women (introduces the child to religion) still
they are not accorded importance in religion

“Double bind” about women in politics - “If a woman campaigned vigorously, she would
likely be regarded as a neglectful wife and mother. If she was an attentive wife and mother,
she was apt to be judged incapable of devoting energy to public office.”

❖ A UN Report (1980) declares that while women constitute half of

the world population, they perform nearly 2/3rd of the total work
hours, receive 1/10th of the total income and own less than
1/100th of the total property.
❖ There are different streams of Feminism which study gender differently:
1. Radical feminism - They see society as patriarchal and blame men for
the exploitation of women. Men use violence and its threat to secure and
maintain their power over women.
2. Marxist and socialist feminism - They see capitalists as the main
beneficiaries of the exploitation of women (in the pursuit of profit, they
gain from employing them at low wages or from their unpaid house labour
indirectly as it helps men to work at the expense of their wives)
3. Liberal feminists - are the most moderate of them all and believe that it
is culture that is the culprit behind women’s plight, not men. Advocate for
gradual changes in- political, eco & social spheres, aim for equal
opportunities- esp in edu and work

Ex of this view- Ann Oakley - when the factory system of production emerged,
women still had equal status, only when child labour was banned and trade
unions opposed women in work, their status started falling

❖ Marxists
● Marxist school- women’s subordination result of private
property in capitalism
● Fredrick Engels states that in primitive communism,
women had a higher position than men but as society
developed and forms of private property emerged, (in
simple terms, earlier society with wanderers was
 promiscuous in the sense that there was no concept of
family and it was difficult to determine who was the child
of whom. As society advanced, people started producing
in surplus and hence their assets grew so the problem of
giving it to child arose as man cannot consume entire
property in his lifetime so he started looking out for the
woman with whom he procreated and this is how women
became part of private property and their confinement
also grew) the control of men increased, putting gender
equality on the backburner. He believed that capitalist
society, despite all its issues, provided an opportunity for
women to work at par with men and gain some equality.
● Marx and Engels- +ve fallout of capitalism- ↑women’s
participation in workforce- improved status w/in family;
gender stratification ends in communism= communal
ownership of FoP (by M and F alike)
● Margaret Benston - capitalism benefits from women as they are a
reserve army which helps keep wages down plus are easily employed
in the category of secondary breadwinners.

❖ Heidi Hartmann believes that capitalism and patriarchy are very

intertwined, but she does not believe that the interests of men are
identical to that of capitalists. For example: Capitalists may want
women to work at low wages but men may want their wives to be
at home to perform services for them.
❖ Ann Oakley believes patriarchy and capitalism are damaging the
planet. Example: War and violence stems from what men learn
about being masculine, and from attempts to maintain patriarchy.
Male-dominated transnational companies are constantly feeding
the consumption culture. Male economists ignore housework in
GDP calculations. Medical science is making invasion of the
female body possible, like IVF.
❖ Functionalist ideas
● Parsons believes that with the arrival of modernity,
hierarchy of genders has been converted into a
competitive gender relationship. Hence, gender does not
determine ranking in stratification systems.
Parsons - in family, females expressive roles, males instrumental roles,
breadwinner, stressful - women to stabilize and control men -
socialization of the young and the stabilization of adult personalities

● Goldthorpe - modern society is meritocratic, achievement

oriented, women career encouraged because it can help
family mobility.
● John Bowlby - maternal deprivation, the child runs the
risk of being inadequately socialized, social and
psychological difficulties later.

❖ Blood and Hamblin- in ‘Effect of the Wife’s Employment on

the Family Power Structure’- gender stratification not altered by
 mere participation in eco roles but by decision making power
commanded by women inside families (which is still held by men)

❖ Matrilineal societies like the Khasis are often cited to rebuff the
idea that women in all societies are discriminated against.
However, recent writings have shown how even among a
matrilineal society like the Khasis, control of property and
decision making within the family (the private domain) often
resides with the male head - the brother.

❖ Michelle Rosaldo argued that it is the division between the

public and private (domestic) world which is the reason for
women subordination. With the example of Mbuti Pygmies of
Africa, she demonstrated that where men and women share
domestic responsibilities, the societies are relatively egalitarian.

❖ Karuna Ahmad finds 4 trends in women’s employment:

● Pink collarization - clustering of women in a few occupations.
● Clustering either in low status occupation or in the lower rungs of the
prestigious profession.
● Glass ceiling - women receive lower salaries and advancement
opportunities than men.
● High proportion of highly educated and professionally trained unemployed
women.
❖ Blackburn and Stewart- in ‘ Women, Work and Class
Structure’ - women going to work- not gender equality, women
entering a specific market reserved for females (in agri, services,
not industries); employed in part-time and low paid jobs; top
positions out of reach (glass ceiling) (stratification now = family
+ workplace)
❖ SECOND SHIFT IN WHICH WOMEN COME HOME FROM WORK TO MORE
WORK - COOKING, CHILDCARE - WHEREAS MEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO
SPEND THEIR TIME IN LEISURE AFTER WORK.
❖ Ortner and Whitehead proposed a model of prestige structures which is defined as the
set of prestige positions or levels that result from a particular line of social evaluation,
the mechanisms by which individuals arrive at a given level or positions, and the overall
conditions of reproduction of the system of statuses.

Gender, they argued, is one such prestige structure, and in every human society, man
and woman compose two differentially valued terms of a value set, men being men,
higher. They suggested that male prestige is linked to 'public roles', such as chief or a
Brahman, while female prestige is defined in relation to men, in such roles as wife,
sister and mother, in other words female structures are encompassed within the male
structures. Conceptualising gender as one of the prestige structures pushed the
gendered analysis of social stratification across societies.

❖ In Kibbutz also, theoretical equality; actually, men- agri,

construction while women- nursing, teaching (Pg- 149, NS)
❖ Gender stratification has moved past M-F debate, now focus on
LGBT
 ❖ Recent trends:
● ↑automation in industry and ↑service sector share=
change in nature of work= ↑women participation
● ↑literacy rates
● Factors promoting ↑time for devotion to
work/career-↑child gap, mechanisation of household
work, protective sexual harassment laws at workplaces
● ↑security to women in traditional societies through right to
property
● MeToo revolution
● Gender budgeting
● Govt schemes (BBBP, Sukanya Samriddhi, SEWA,
Anganwadi workers, SUI scheme, reservations in
MGNREGA)
● Breaking glass ceiling- changes in Companies Act,
Armed Forces (permanent commissioning, allowed in
NDA), B V Nagarathna- first woman CJI, 3 women judges
in SC, reservation in Panchayat seats (largely symbolic)

Race
❖ Beginning of concept of race:
● Focus on racial concept in modern times began with the Europeans
coming into contact with other cultures who they collectively termed as
non-white
● In the 17th century, with European colonialism, the
ideology of racial stratification gained strength, with
Europeans placing themselves (Caucasoid) at the top
of the scheme.
● Following Darwin’s natural selection, the concept of Social Darwinism
by Herbert Spencer gained ground- that certain racial groups were
more successful and thus superior to others.
● Attempts were made to give a scientific colour to it by
anthropologists/researchers in 18th C
● Racism, as a term, entered into common usage only after 1900
● 1st major racial classification given by Joseph Arthur de Gobineau
(mid 19th C)-
★ White (Caucasian)
★ Black (Negroid)
★ Yellow (Mongolian)
Notions of superiority/inferiority also attached to them (white=
supreme)

● Such ideas (above) inspired colonial rulers who tried to justify

colonialism
● White Man’s Burden Theory (Rudyard Kipling) rooted in racial notions
● Hitler- developed a political ideology on the basis of adoption of
supremacy of Aryan race

❖ Race as a system of stratification is loaded with both prejudice

and discrimination based on social perceptions of observable
biological differences between people.
❖ Claim of some sociologists- people assigned to races as per public opinion
moulded by dominant groups of the society instead of having any scientific
basis to it. They, thus, view it as merely an ideological construct based on
physical differences.
❖ Richardson and Lambert view race as a social construction with
no biological basis. It has more to do with what people make of
physical differences and the everyday or commonsense notions
which influence them.
❖ Oliver C. Cox sees the idea of race as a human creation. Races were
identified according to physical characteristics, but these characteristics did not
have to reflect any real biological differences between groups. It was the belief
in difference that was important, not any real differences that might exist.
❖ Theories offered to explain racial stratification:
● Ethnocentrism- evaluation of culture of others against one’s own
(notion of in-groups and out-groups); exclusionary devices-
ghettoisation, ban on intermarriages, social distance maintenance;
done by powerful to marginalise others (ex- happened to Blacks in SA,
USA)
● Conflict perspective- Oliver C. Cox- It is a product of the capitalist
system with slavery, colonialism and racism as its tools to exploit labour

John Rex and Paul Hirst see race as a product of capitalism, where
economic opportunities were seen in outside labour and slave trade
brought down the costs. Discrimination meted out to them, is attributed
to the lowly tasks that they performed in the past.

● Migration of ethnic minorities to West, in times of hardships migrants

blamed by natives of usurping employment opportunities and eco
space, considered as outsiders (MAGA of Trump and his supporters,
Trump’s ban on skilled immigrants on job visas is also reflective of this
thinking)

❖ In a given society, those who share racial characteristics socially perceived as

undesirable are typically under-represented in positions of social power - they
become a minority category in that society. This minority status does not
necessarily have to do with population. For example: Demographically, whites
were a minority in South Africa, but sociologically speaking, they were in
majority.
❖ There can be two kinds of racism in systems of social stratification - overt and
covert.
● Overt racism usually feeds directly into a stratification system through its
effect on social status. For example, members associated with a
particular race may be assigned a slave status, a form of oppression in
which they are refused basic rights that are granted to other members.
● Covert racism, which many scholars opine is
practised in more contemporary societies, is socially
hidden and less easily detectable. It often feeds into
stratification systems as an intervening variable
affecting income, educational opportunities and
housing.
 Both overt and covert racism can take the form of structural
inequality in a society in which racism has become
institutionalised.

Pierre L. van den Berghe sees a shift from the paternalistic

race relationship of the 18th and early 19th century to the
competitive race relationship of today.

❖ Post declaration of civil rights in USA (1960s), official abolition of Apartheid in

SA (early 1990s) and some other steps- racism operates in subtle/ covert ways
now- new racism
● Racial profiling incidents in USA
★ Angela Davis- state’s complicit in perpetuating ethnic/racial
discriminations; modern tool of America- mass imprisonment of
Afro-Americans and Hispanics
★ Killing of black youth by white cops ignited massive uproars (ex-
BLM over killing of George Floyd)
★ Lambert - blacks are more involved in crime due to social
exclusion.
● Gunnar Myrdal observes that while America is
considered as a land of equal opportunity, it is seen that
though coloured Americans also follow institutionally
prescribed means to pursue culturally prescribed goals,
they are still subjected to inequalities.
● On the other hand, Parsons sees America as a land of
meritocracy and states that coloured people are held
back not due to discrimination, but due to lack of
educational opportunities. Once these opportunities
become available, race will cease to be a factor and only
merit will determine the success of any individual.

❖ Merton states that victims of racism respond in various ways and

can become retreatists, innovators, rebellious or ritualists.
❖ Racism, today, disguised in cultural differences instead of biological, those
cultures which refuse to assimilate into the dominant ones face threat of
marginalisation and are discriminated against (ex- bans on turbans, hijab etc)

Ethnicity

❖ An ethnic group is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each

other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience. It is
usually seen as defining groups in terms of their cultural characteristics rather
than their supposed biological differences.

❖ There are three popular conceptions of ethnicity:

● Biological - it is based on a common genetic descent. In
this sense, ethnicity has been treated as synonymous with
race.
● Cultural - it treated ethnicity as a cultural phenomenon.
 ● Psychological - a consciousness of common identity.
An awareness exists among the members of a group
regarding their similarity to each other
Depending on which source of group identity is
emphasised to define membership, the following types
of ethnic groups can be identified: ethno-racial,
ethno-religious, ethno-linguistic, ethno-national or
ethno-regional

❖ Paul Brass discusses three ways of defining ethnic groups:

1. in terms of objective attributes - that separate one
group from the other. So that anybody can make out
from the way you speak, look etc. the ethnicity you
belong to. Example: language, territory, religion, dress,
etc. (how Hazaras can be identified in Afghanistan
basis their Asiatic features and Persian dialect-
Hazaragi)
2. by reference to subjective feelings - existence of an ethnic
self-consciousness, something which later contributed to the making of
nations and hence, national consciousness. Ex- Marathis experience this
feeling, voiced in their demands of reservations in job, edu etc.
3. in relation to behaviour – derived from the view of 3rd
party which regards us as a one group (concept of
otherisation, for ex a US citizen views all Asians on the
basis of any single criteria in their mind but Asia is also
composed of many ethnicities). Points to the existence of
concrete, specific ways in which ethnic groups do or do
not behave in relation to, or in interaction with other
groups.

❖ Conflict due to - visible differences between groups, competition

for resources, racist ideology, potential for exploitation and the
minority group response to the majority definition of the situation

❖ Giddens writes: Ethnicity refers to cultural practices and outlooks that

distinguish a given community of people. Members of ethnic groups see
themselves as culturally distinct from other groupings in a society, and are seen
by those others to be so. Many different characteristics may serve to
distinguish ethnic groups from one another, but the most usual are language,
history or ancestry (real or imagined), religion, and styles of dress or adornment
Giddens - Minority group or ethnic minority is:
● Its members are disadvantaged, as a result of discrimination
against them by others. Discrimination exists when rights and
opportunities open to one set of people are denied to another
group.
● Members of the minority have some sense of group solidarity, of
'belonging together' (sons of the soil ideology). Experience of being the
subject of prejudice and discrimination usually heightens feelings of
common loyalty and interests. Members of minority groups often tend
to see themselves as 'a people apart' from the majority.
 ● Minority groups are usually to some degree physically and socially
isolated from the larger community, They tend to be concentrated in
certain neighbourhoods, cities or regions of a country. There is little
intermarriage between those in the majority and members of the
minority group. People in the minority group might actively promote
endogamy (marriage within the group) in order to keep alive their
cultural distinctiveness.

❖ Ethnicity- a social phenomenon wherein people learn their ethnic differences as

a result of socialisation and with use of exclusionary devices like marriage

❖ In English, for a long time, the term referred to someone who was
neither Christian nor Jew - a pagan or heathen. In other words,
ethnics were those 'others' who were not 'us'..

❖ Thomas H. Eriksen sees ethnicity as relating to relationships between groups

whose members consider themselves distinctive, and these groups are often
ranked hierarchically within a society and are biologically perpetuating. He
distinguishes between different types of ethnic groups - modern migrants,
indigenous people, proto nations or ethno-nationalist movements, ethnic
groups in plural societies like Mauritius and post-slavery minorities.

Ericksen - Ethnic groups are biologically perpetuating, go for boundary

maintenance and in this process develop associational relationships through
which they can question deprivation - example: Indian association in USA .

❖ Abriel Smith advocates ethnicity and political history as complementary to

each other. One group of people taking ethnicity as a cause establish a
nation-state like France or Britain

❖ Pitrim Sorokin calls nations as 'active ethnicity' and ethnicity as 'passive

nationality'. Nation is born due to ethnic attributes.

❖ Jenkins - ethnicity is about group identification, race is about social

categorization.

❖ Karl Deutsch- ethnicity has been instrumental for balkanization and the rise of
so many nations in Europe, post WW2.

❖ Paul Hirst advocates that ethnicity is used by capitalists to keep the working
class divided, so as to prevent any revolution from happening.

❖ Ethnic violence- seen in areas where the ‘immigration host’ model undergoes
a crisis, as instead of acknowledging differences and providing space for
inclusive development, hosts expect immigrants to fit into their culture,
smoothly and invisibly. Example: demand for bans on turbans and hijabs.

Hence, we see wide manifestations of ethnicity ranging everyday prejudices to

formation of nations. Thus, ethnicity as a system of social stratification, both
integrates and disintegrates societies.
❖ Fredrick Barth sees ethnicity is a much more elastic concept as
compared to race or caste. It is usually used for invoking the
political milieu. Though some forms of ethnicity are much more
ingrained and complex than others, by way of language shift,
acculturation, adoption, and religious conversion, it is possible for
some individuals or groups to leave one ethnic group and enter
another.

Fredrick Barth - boundaries of ethnic groups are highly elastic, so

ethnic identity is not a fixed identity - created, dismantles and
recreated for different purposes at different points of time - Asian
Americans in USA include Paki and Indians both, further into
North v/s South, Tamil v/s Telugu, Brahmin v/s Dravidians - source
of strength for collective mobilisation.

❖ While racial identities remain same, ethnic ones revise over time, Chicago
school- over several generations, these identities were lost and later revised

❖ One ethnic group may be subsumed by another under difft situations (ex-
Ethnic Indians in USA)

❖ Ethnic stratification depends on processes underwent by societies-

assimilation, melting pot (USA), pluralistic coexistence (India) or antagonistic
coexistence (Sri Lanks)

❖ Arguments of some theorists- modernisation will blur ethnic lines-

● Gellner advocates that the merit-based nature of modern society will

dissipate any divisions on the basis of ethnicity and abilities will spell
out class positions. They believe that modern principles lead to more
homogenization and thus disappearance of cultural and ethnic
identities.
● Against-
★ But critical theorists like Habermas and
primordial theorists like Borris and
Richmond argue that ethnicity becomes
more prominent in modern times to preserve
itself from drastic changes and is present in
covert forms even in modern societies.
★ incidents like lynching of N-E student- Nido Tania (2014, Delhi),
Western countries to immigrants, Sr Lankan govt’s failure to do
justice to Tamilians, Crimea’s annexation by Russia- signs that
ethnicity hard to die
★ Glazer- ethnicity will not fade away, will resurge as a reaction to
modernisation; and the increasing importance of ethnic
identities or ethnicization can in fact, be attributed to the very
conditions of modernization
★ Clifford Geertz, a symbolic theorist, states that ethnicity will
continue to exist, not because of its functions but because of
emotions.
Social Mobility

Meaning

❖ Means transition of individuals/ groups from one position, in the social

hierarchy, to another
❖ Concept closely linked to that of stratification; as hierarchical patterns evolve,
tendency of shifting these patterns (individual/structural level) also evolves
❖ Functionalists-
● Parsons- it’s a result of differentiation in society and role filling by the
suitable
● Davis and Moore- reward system of society facilitates mobility of
individual
❖ Marx- ↑social mobility= weakening of class solidarity; downward mobility- petit
bourgeoisie to proletariat
❖ Frank Parkin & Dahrendorf- act as a safety valve in society for venting out
pent up frustrations
❖ Ken Roberts- 2 impt reasons for studying it:
1. Indicator of meritocracy in society
2. Indicator of stability of class architecture

❖ Instances low in traditional societies (ascriptive stratification)

● Andre Beteille- mobility difficult in caste system
● Srinivas (study of Coorgs)- in such societies, alternatives like
Sanskritization used for moving up socially (only affects cultural
aspects, not structural)
❖ Widespread in modern societies esp inter-generational as industrial societies
emphasise on formal qualifications in recruitment so even children of working
class parents acquire edu before searching for employment
❖ Sorokin- it’s functional for society as- promotes efficiency and social order
❖ ↑ more common than ↓
❖ over -hyped, not much prevalent, factors responsible:
● David Glass, in a study in England- it’s low and there’s rampant elite
self- recruitment, only middle and lower positions left for others. Most
mobility- short ranged
● Duncan and Blau (1 of the largest mobility study of America)- long
range mobility- rare
● A study by Willmott and Young in London revealed that 83% of the
managing directors in the 1970s were the sons of professionals and
managers.
● Goldthorpe’s empirical study in England- even in European countries,
mobility only limited to among immediate classes; long range mobility=
difficult
❖ Very acceptance of it strengthens classes, reinforces status distinctions which
are value-laden; focus of social change should be- social equality, not mobility
❖ Dysfunctions-
● disruptive reactions from upper stratums on account of intrusion
● High rate of social mobility= state of social anomie

Open and Closed systems

 ❖ Open- In an open system, the norms prescribe and encourage mobility. There
are independent principles of ranking like status, class and power. Individuals
are assigned to different positions in the social structure on the basis of their
merit or achievement. The system is characterised by occupational diversity,
flexible hierarchy, and rapidity of change. The hold of ascription-based groups
like caste, kinship or family is insignificant. The dominant values in such a
system emphasise on equality and freedom of the individual and on change
and innovation

● Free mobility from one stratum to another

● No barriers incapable of being overcome
● Ex- modern societies (USA- log cabin to White House)
● Possible by hard work, knowledge, efforts
● Possible because- treat everyone equally and pre-suppose that people
ought to have equal access to all opportunities

❖ Closed- In a closed system, individuals are assigned their place in the social
structure on the basis of ascriptive criteria like age, birth, sex. This system
emphasises the associative character of the hierarchy. It justifies the inequality
in the distribution of wealth, status and power and discourages or even
suppresses any attempt to change it. Considerations of functional suitability or
ideological notions of equality of opportunity are irrelevant in this society

● Individuals can’t cross their strata under ordinary circumstances

● Marked by rigid & unassailable boundaries
● Ex- traditional ascriptive societies marked by exclusivity of membership
(caste, gender)
● Weber talks of social closure by different status groups. For example:
caste endogamy in Hindus.

But as Beteille points out, while the upwardly aspiring groups wish to be
included among the higher groups, once they arrive there, they try to retain their
exclusivity. Thus in the case of the caste system both processes, those of
inclusion and exclusion paradoxically coexist. This idea is similar to that of social
closure, used by Weber.

Sources and Causes

❖ Sorokin’s 4 primary factors affecting mobility:

1. Demographic- age, sex, race etc. Older people < younger; poor
families- more children- depletion of resources so less chances of
mobility
● The birth rate of higher strata is generally lower than that of
lower strata. The net population growth is such that there is
usually some room at the top for members of lower strata.
Hence, people from lower strata will move upward to fill in the
space. This is also true in terms of urban and rural populations,
where migration from rural areas balances the low birth rate of
 urban population. From the mobility angle, this means that new
kind of vacancies are created which must then be filled

2. Talent and Ability- abilities of parents and children don’t match

● In ascriptive societies, children may not always be as suited to
their inherited status positions
● Lipset and Bendix state that there are always new supplies of
talent which must be absorbed somewhere or the other. Even in
societies with inherited status positions, there were always
opportunities for talented individuals to be upwardly mobile. For
example: under feudalism, individuals with military prowess
could rise. But critics argue that class of origin still matters and
the topmost positions and the lowest positions are largely
self-recruiting.
3. Faulty distribution of individuals in social positions- structural
factors- people in wrong positions- reduced chances of mobility
● Pareto says that history is the graveyard of aristocracies . He
contended that over time generations lose their innate qualities,
or persons from lower strata might exhibit those qualities, and
thus a change in the personnel of the elite would take place.
4. Change of the social environment- industrialisation, legal restrictions-
structural changes- collective mobility.
● According to Harold Gould industrialization brought about the
transfer of specialised occupations of all kinds from the context
of the kin groups to factories organised on bureaucratic
principles. This meant that occupational role and role occupant
would be in principle separated and that the preponderant
criteria for determining occupations would be performance
qualities and that economic rewards and social mobility would
constitute the principle standards for evaluating the worth or the
status of any given role. Thus, industrialization and the
accompanying urbanisation are major sources of social mobility.

However, Goldthorpe cites the work of Miller, who shows that

in fact there is a lack of convergence between the rates of
mobility of industrial societies. This shows that perhaps it is not
industrialization per se, but also other factors, such as cultural
factors, the education system etc., which also have a bearing
on social mobility.

● For ex- Weber- Protestantism promoted the rise

of Capitalism.
❖ Pierre Bourdieu- 4 types of capital placing a person in certain social category;
cultural factors hinder mobility- poor have poor cultural capital which is inherited
by their generations
❖ Goldthorpe- happens in immediate ranks, absolute from low to high- rare
❖ Factors (personal and structural), in general:
● Industrialization and urbanisation- Lipset Zetterberg Thesis
● Education
● Social capital and social status
● Occupation
● Social and cultural values
 ● Social movements
● Law and constitution
● Migration
● Technology
● Subjective factors-
Veblen's book, The Theory of the Leisure Class allows us to infer
that every stratification system is automatically a source of mobility.
This is because every individual's estimation of himself or herself is
largely based on other's evaluation of them. And individuals will always
seek to be well thought of in the eyes of their fellow men. Thus they will
aspire to those positions which society deems to be worthwhile.

● Political factors

Types of Mobility

1. Horizontal and Vertical

● V- Sorokin- from 1 social stratum to another, of 2 types-
ascending and descending
★ Causes for downward mobility: because
certain occupations have lost in prestige
through a re-ranking of positions, and thus
their occupants have moved down. Or
those very positions cease to exist.

● H- moving w/in same status/class category; Sorokin- transition

of person from one social group to another at same level.
★ Anthony Giddens considers that there is a great deal
of mobility along the lateral direction in modern
societies, and refers to horizontal mobility as lateral
mobility.

Giddens calls those who gain in property, income or status as

upwardly mobile, while those who move in the opposite direction
as downwardly mobile. He also comments that in modem societies
vertical and horizontal mobility are often combined. For example:
an individual working in a company in one city might be promoted
to a higher position in a branch of the firm located in another town,
or even in a different country. In fact, mobility is being considered
as a factor of promotions in modern societies.

2. Intra and inter- generational

● Intra- career mobility; Mobility taking place in personal terms
within the lifespan of the same person is called intra-
generational mobility.(. Example: Ms. Arundhati Bhattacharya
started as a PO in SBI and rose to the position of its Chairman)
● Inter- change in social standing across generations; one can
analyse the status of a daughter, upon reaching adulthood, as
compared to that of her parents.
Example: if the daughter of a clerk becomes an IAS officer. This
is intergenerational mobility and it tells us to what extent
inequalities are passed on from one generation to the next. If
there is very less intergenerational mobility, it shows that
 inequalities are deeply built into the society and life chances are
majorly determined at birth

3. Structural and individual

● S- caused by major upheavals in society enhancing
opportunities for people to move up the social ladder, may
cause mobility of whole stratum or nation also
★ It refers to mobility which is brought about by changes in
stratification hierarchy itself. It is a vertical movement of
a specific group, class or occupation relative to others in
the stratification system. It is a type of forced mobility for
it takes place because of the structural changes and not
because of individual attempts. For example,
technology or labour market changes may lead to the
rise or decline of an occupational group within the social
hierarchy. Cotton mill workers in India saw a decline in
their social position after the mass shutdown of mills
and increasing use of synthetic fabrics..

● I- micro view of mobility, facilitated by individual characteristics

while some can also restrict it (Heidi Hartmann says that
women and middle class are more prone to downward mobility
than being able to rise in the socio- economic scale and
occupying important positions)

★ When an individual changes their social

position due to achievement of economic
means, prestige or power, it is termed as
individual mobility.
★ When a group as a whole improves its social position, it
is termed as group mobility. For example: with increase
in trade and agriculture in the later Vedic period,
Vaishyas experienced group mobility.

Circulation of elites in Pareto's theory was of two types. In the

first, talented individuals from lower strata enter higher strata. At
other times, when the abilities of higher groups are called into
question, it is likely that groups from lower strata challenge and
overthrow the supremacy of such groups. In other words, both
individual and group mobility is possible.

Max Gluckman has referred to this as 'repetitive change', in the

context of changes in African chiefdoms. Of course, it may also
happen that such a change does not take place within the
confines of a given system, but ends in changing the system
itself, that is, the structure of positions itself

4. Absolute and Relative

● A- whether standards have changed (improved or deteriorated)
and by how much
 ● R- refers to fluidity of society, it’s a 0 sum proposition (give
increase in income example)

5. Sponsored and Contested

● R.H. Turner calls sponsored social mobility as the one which a
person acquires due to some policy decision. Mobility
happening because of some outside support
● contested mobility is the one based on open competition
For example: policy of reservation is known as sponsored
social mobility (not entirely sponsored but a mix of sponsored
and contested as low caste people are also competing amongst
themselves for limited seats).
Barriers to Mobility

❖ Merton writes about the importance of the reference group in determining social
behaviour. (ex- peer group in UPSC). He states that an individual who seeks to
be mobile has, as a reference group, a non-membership group rather than his
own group, and goes for anticipatory socialisation..
❖ Caste clustering has increased in industries which allows mobility of only one
caste and doesn’t allow other castes

Social Mobility and Social Change

Is social mobility even happening?

❖ 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 reproduction of common life experiences over generations
❖ Merton's work on social structure and anomie, sheds more light on this. He
differentiates between socially accepted goals and means of achieving these
goals which will decide mobility to some extent. The goals refer to the values of
society. Those who accept the goals and the means of achieving them are
Conformists. But there may be those who reject the goals - the values, as well
as the means of achieving them. These people may either retreat from social life
- Retreatism, or may rebel against society - Rebellion. In the latter case, they may
postulate a new structure of society, rather than seek advancement within the
given structure.

Social mobility is a product of social change and also it also initiates social
change.

Consequences of Mobility

❖ +ve
● High mobility adds to social cohesion. America did not
witness class wars as the social structure was open.
Europe had a rigid social structure and the class inequality
was far more pronounced.
❖ -ve
● Anomie of infinite aspiration, illegitimate means may be
used to climb up the ladder, by people with achievement
motivation.
 ● Weakens kinship ties (you are continuously working hard to attain upward
mobility thereby ignoring your social bonds) Social deviance increases.
Solidarity is reducing, divorce rates increasing, depression rates soaring.

Four forms of social stratification having specific patterns of social mobility:

1. SLAVERY SYSTEM : Mobility was possible only in two

ways – through manumission and through rebellion.

2. ESTATE SYSTEM: Mobility was possible through the act

of grace of the monarch. He could bestow a person in the
rank of nobility. Another avenue of mobility was
occupational guilds. Marriage also was an important
avenue of social mobility, especially for women.

3. CASTE SYSTEM : is an example of closed stratification system where

an individual’s position is largely ascribed. There is little scope of social
mobility, though avenues are available for social mobility:
– Flexibility in the political system.
– Availability of land cultivation.
– Sanskritization.
– Hypergamy

4. CLASS SYSTEM : is an example of an open system of stratification.

– Membership depends on achievement.

– Norms envisage mobility.
– Equality of opportunity.
– Open model of mobility.

Indian context

❖ The important channels of social mobility during the ancient period were
● Sanskritization
● conversion to Buddhism, Jainism and other heterodox sects
● migration
● renouncing the world and taking to the life of mendicant and preacher
❖ Mediaeval period
● Islam
● Bhakti
● sufism
CHAPTER-6 Work and Economic Life

❖ Different notions of work:

● Bible- result of sins of Adam and Eve
● Calvinists- it’s a calling, possible way of being the ‘chosen one’
● Karma- work in material world
● Marx- expression of creativity, hence happiness and satisfaction

❖ Work- carrying out tasks requiring the expdt of mental & physical effort which has
as its objective- production of goods & services catering to human needs.

❖ In economic socio- an activity resulting in paid employment, reward or contract

❖ Social significance of work:

● Money or wage.
● Activity level - provides a basis of the acquisition and exercise of skills
and capacities.
● Variety - provides access to contexts that contrast with domestic
surroundings, breaks monotony of domestic life
● Temporal structure - For people in regular employment, the day is
usually organised around the rhythm of work. While this may
sometimes be oppressive, it provides a sense of direction in daily
activities.
● Social contacts - The work environment often provides friendships and
opportunities to participate in shared activities with others; opportunities
of expanding social contacts and building social capital
● Personal identity - Work is usually valued for the sense of stable social
identity it offers, especially important for men; people are known by what
they do

❖ Marx- first sociologist to examine working conditions of factories, identify

dimensions of alienation & deskilling in a factory setting
❖ Durkheim- work integrates the society
❖ Weber- new types of authority develop with bureaucratic organisations of work
❖ Different from labour-
● labour is one who lacks choice for any reason and forced into work
● Workers- are in a contractual relation with employer, labour in feudal/ritual
relation with employer
 ❖ Contemporary trend- shift towards flexible production and decentralisation of
work , emergence of virtual workplaces, Robert Blauner- ↑tech= ↑alienation

Social Organisation of work in different types of society

❖ Organisation of work- patterning of activities involving technical + social
component
● Technically called- DoL (this organisation is found in modern societies)
● Socially- reflects society’s normative structure (found in traditional
societies)
❖ Value system
● pre-industrial societies- particularistic, diffused, affective
● Industrial society- universalism, achievement oriented, affective neutrality
etc.
❖ Pre- industrial societies-
● Kinship groups- important in production
● Absence of scales in production
● Eco activities done in small groups
● Aim- meeting subsistence needs, so no surplus
● Alienation- low, community feeling among members

❖ Modern Industrial societies-

● Well developed political system (nation-state)- supporting enterprises,
facilitating wide commerce
● Uniform legal system makes economic system stable
● Mass based edu- to produce skilled workforce
● Change in family and kinship ties- mobile families needed= nuclearisation
of families
● Family- unit of consumption, individuals in it become unit of production
instead of family as whole
● Skills acquired through formal institutions, not hereditary learning
❖ Schema for analysing social organisation of work in difft types of societies
(ANPSMA):
1. Activities of production
2. Nature of work
3. Source of Power
4. System of Stratification
5. Social mobility
6. Degree of Alienation

❖ Different societies:
1. Slave society (ancient MoP)-
● According to Marx and Engels, slave society was
the earliest form of class society. It is an extreme
form of inequality in which some individuals are
owned by others as their property. The slave
owner has full control including using violence
over the slave. T Hobhouse defined slave as a
man whom law and custom regard as the
property of another. In extreme cases he is wholly
without rights.
● In the slave-owning society, primitive tools were perfected and
bronze and iron tools replaced the stone and wooden implements.
Agriculture, livestock raising, mining and handicrafts developed.

● Features:
★ Major eco activity- hunting and food gathering
★ Source of Power- animated- human labour and animal
power
★ Stratification system- low inequalities as most people in
similar activities- simple stratification
★ Mobility- low, as less DoL (occupational differentiation
limited to birth, sex and age) and ascriptive society
★ Alienation level- low as workers enjoy fruits of production
★ Family role in production- community based production
process
★ Simple needs so no new innovations
★ Poor specialisation- low productivity- little surplus- no
private ownership

● The article ‘Slavery’ in the Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences

(1968) makes a distinction between primitive, ancient, medieval
and modern slavery
★ Two main types of slavery - ancient
slavery and new world slavery. Ancient
slavery was prevalent in ancient Rome
and Greece. Here slaves were usually
foreign prisoners of war. In new world
slavery, the basis of development of
slavery were colonial expansion and racist
ideology. The slave was designated as the
master's property and had no political and
social rights.Living upon slave labour, the
masters formed an aristocracy

★ It is said that the decline of slavery

was primarily brought about by the
inefficiency of slave labour. Some
other scholars hold that slavery
declined, because of continued
opposition to the slave system by
educated and enlightened public in
general, and the anti-slavery
struggles organized by the slaves
themselves in different parts of the
world at different times

★ The ancient slavery was somewhat

reformed, by limiting the owner's right
of punishment and giving personal
rights to the slave. The Christian
Church in the Roman Empire also
 supported the provision of
manumission to the slave.

● India-
★ Both male and female servants and slaves performed
specialized functions in domestic and non-domestic
services of the privileged class. They were also used as
an object of display. Payments to the servants were very
low.
★ Manu mentions seven kinds of slaves - a
captive of war, a slave of maintenance, a
son of a female slave, one purchased for
money, a slave obtained as a present, a
hereditary one, and one condemned to
slavery for any offence.

2. Feudal society (feudalistic MoP)-

●
a piece of landed property, during mediaeval period of Euro
history, given by king to vassal in exchange of military service

● The evolution of the feudal system brought about the

development of exchange of agricultural and manufactured
products in regional markets. People started using inanimate
sources of energy, viz., water and wind, besides human labour.
The crafts advanced further, new implements and machines were
invented and old ones were improved. The labour of crafts
persons was specialised, raising productivity considerably.

● Nevertheless, these relations were more

progressive than in slavery system, because they
made the labourers interested, to some extent, in
their labour. The peasants and the artisans could
own the implements or small parts of land. Power
was handed down through family lines, with
peasant families serving lords for generations and
generations.

● Features:
★ Major eco activity- agriculture and crafts
★ Source of power- land ownership
★ Stratification system- development of handicrafts-
specializations- DoL- 3 estates (nobility, clergy,
commoners or slaves)
★ Mobility- very low, closed society, roles of 3 estates
defined by birth (ascriptive)
★ Alienation level- still low, significant autonomy to workers
as specialisations low
 ● Over the years, the term feudalism has also come to acquire a
generic meaning and is frequently used to describe the
pre-modern agrarian societies in other parts of the world as well.
The distinctive feature of the agrarian class structure in feudalism
is the relationship of "dependency" and "patronage" that exists
between the cultivators and the "overlords". The cultivating
peasants have to show a sense of "loyalty" and obligation towards
their overlords. His sense of loyalty is expressed not only by
paying a share of the produce of land to the landlord but very
often the peasants are also obliged to work for the overlord and
perform certain duties without expecting any wages in return.
Indian example- In Tehri Garhwal district of Uttaranchal, a
labourer, usually belonging to the untouchable castes of Doms
and Koltas borrows a small sum of money from a landowner in
order to get married and subsequently becomes bonded to his
landowner-moneylender.
● India-
★ A feudal type of society started emerging
during the Gupta period (AD 1300-600)
which gradually stabilised. Land grants
were made by the Gupta emperors, their
feudatories and private individuals which
created a class of powerful intermediaries
between the king and the masses.
Further, land grants became more
common during the post-Gupta period.

3. Industrial Capitalist society-

● Features:
★ Major eco activity- mass production of factory goods
★ Source of power- inanimate power (machinery used)
★ Stratification system- haves (owners of capital)- have
nots (owners of their labour); highly unequal as profit
which forms fruit of labour of workers is appropriated by
the capitalists; high DoL due to increased specialisation-
unequal stratification
★ Social mobility- high occupational mobility- achievement
oriented society- communication and opportunities
increase
★ Alienation level- highest; worker loses control over work
and high specialisation- increased monotony
★ Earlier production for self consumption (product had use
value), now for exchange and profit (products have
exchange value)

● Giddens:
★ Highly complex division of labour and
high degree of specialisation - UK census
lists some 20,000 distinct jobs in the
British economy
 ★ Shift in location of work. Earlier
small - scale artisanship from
home. Now in factories. High
economic interdependence
★ From animate to inanimate power
★ Taylorism, Fordism and Post Fordism
(collaborative work groups, mass
customization, global production).

● Marxist scholars Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis -

Capitalists need a surplus amount of labour to enhance their
bargaining potential and exert managerial control over them.
Thus, organisational structure in industries is used to perpetuate
class divisions

● CW Mills in ‘White Collar Alienation’ says that

the market buys the personality of a worker and
not always his skills. Thus, some pieces of
personality are given importance and in order to
chase them, man alienated himself from his true
self.
● Herbert Marcuse says false needs and perceived
happy consciousness prevent workers from
realising the true nature of alienation. Leisure
becomes a means of escape to refresh oneself
and get back to work.
● Emile Durkheim:
★ Functionalist view - he is cautiously optimistic about
division of labour
★ Industrial societies are based on mutual interdependence.
Hence, promote integration.
★ But increased social differentiation may
lead to anomie, if sufficient social controls
and moral obligations are not present.
★ He argued that this can be taken care of
by increased integration, moral education,
encouraging occupational associations
and development of code of ethics.

● Adam Smith in ‘ Wealth of Nations’ begins with an example of

how an individual worker can make just 20pins in a day, but if the
work is broken down among 10 specialised labourers, they could
together make 48000 pins, therefore increasing production by
240 times.

● Fredrick W Taylor - proposed scientific time and motion

processes which increased the production manifold. These
principles were applied by Henry Ford in his automobile factory
and an assembly line came into being. Fordism is the name
 given to designate the system of mass production tied to the
cultivation of mass markets.

❖ Industrialization and social change-

● Industrialisation caused following changes:
1. Occupational shifts- less force in agri in more industrialised
society (reason why India is still called a feudal country)
2. From ascriptive to achievement based DoL
3. High DoL and opportunity for mobility
4. Changing power relations
5. New forms of conflicts
6. Demand for skilled jobs and edu changes
7. Changing family structure
8. Revolution and Marxian thought

● One of the most distinctive characteristics of the economic system of

modern societies is the existence of a highly complex division of labour.
Work has been divided into an enormous number of different occupations
in which people specialise. In traditional societies, non- agricultural work
entailed the mastery of a craft. Craft skills were learned through a lengthy
period of apprenticeship, and the worker normally carried out all aspects
of the production process from beginning to end.

● But fewer people work in factories than before as a lot many new forms of
occupations have come up.

● The model of social organisation on which modern

industries work is not the same everywhere. In the
western civilization the individual is given importance and
the values and norms of the society uphold the individual's
rights, but in Japan, the 'individual' is subordinated to the
society. The Japanese industrial corporation works like big
communities. Wages and salaries are paid according to
the seniority of the worker concerned and not so much by
his qualifications. A strong sense of corporate solidarity
binds the workers and the managers into a well-knit and
efficient productive unit.

● Professional Associations in Modern Economy:

★ Functionalists point at the integrative, educating
and regulating role of professional associations.
★ Ivan Illich views professional associations as
self-serving groups that create artificial barriers for
entry and cause demand supply mismatch.
★ Baritz in ‘Servants of Power’ states that these associations
serve the ruling class.
● Technology and Work:
★ Robert Blauner suggests that as managers and workers discuss
technical problems, alienation reduces. Higher degree of job
content, responsibility and job rotations add variety and reduce
alienation.
★ Goldthorpe and Lockwood in their study of affluent workers of
Luton, find that instrumental orientation and worker’s expectations
out of work are more impt factors than technology

● Work and Leisure:

★ Stanley Parker mentions three patterns of relationship between
leisure and work:
1. Extensional pattern-
leisure that supports
better performance at
work
2. Neutral Pattern
3. Opposite pattern
★ CW Mills - Each day men sell little pieces of
themselves in order to buy them back each
night and weekends with coins called fun but
leisure does not provide the fulfilment that
work denies.
★ Herbert Marcuse says false needs and perceived
happy consciousness prevent workers from
realising the true nature of alienation. Leisure
becomes a means of escape to refresh oneself
and get back to work.

●
 ●

Formal and informal organisation of work

❖ Organisation is a group with an identifiable membership that

engages in concerted collective action to achieve common
purpose.

Formal Organisation of Work

❖ One in which worker is governed by formal rules and regulations that may be
defined by a contract b/w employee and the employer or by legislations, statutes
and rules of the government
❖ Groups that are organised to achieve goals efficiently. Deliberately created to fulfil
jobs. 3 types:
● Utilitarian organisations - serve some function for their members.
● Normative organisations (voluntary organisations) - people join as
volunteers. Join to pursue some goal they think is morally
worthwhile. Political parties and religious organisations also come
in this category.
● Coercive organisations - you do not have a say in whether you are a
member or not. Example: Prisons.
❖ Features:
● Rationally designed
● Objectives- explicitly laid with defined means for achieving them

Formal organisation is a social collectivity, the goals of

which are formally defined. It has authorities vested with
power. The authorities are expected to mobilise the power
vested in them for achieving the goals of the formal
organisation.

One of the prevalent formal organisations of work- bureaucracy where

workers work on the basis of a legal rational authority structure.
Bureaucracy is an organisation that has been rationally constructed to do
things efficiently.
Six things:
★ Members have specialised roles
★ Hierarchy
 ★ Formal, written communications
★ Technical competence
★ Impersonally
★ Rules and regulations
Giddens in defence of bureaucracy observes that as organisations
expand in size, power relations become looser and there is increased
decentralisation in decision making. It is not possible to have a top down
approach as size increases. Example: Transnational organisations can be
ethnocentric - where power resides in the home country, polycentric -
where it is shared or geocentric - where it is most flexible.

Arguments against Bureaucracy:

★ Merton - Bureaucracy is rule ritualism which provides no space

for creativity or own judgement. It leads to displacement of goals
as rules become an end in itself.
★ Alvin Gouldner sees in his study of industrial
mines that bureaucracy is not present and
required everywhere in a modern society. He
observes that inside a mine, supervisors and
workers share an informal relation to overcome
hazards and maximise efficiency but in industry
they follow a more rule bound and hierarchical
relationship.
★ Robert Michels, in his political theory
and democracy says that flow
of power towards the top is an inevitable part of an increasingly
bureaucratized world. Bureaucracy is a sworn enemy of individual
liberty. Thus, he equates organisations with oligarchy.
★ Pourwell argued that there is a possibility of certain influential
people capturing bureaucracy and dominating those who work for
bureaucracy

● Industrialisation and democracy led to development of organisations

based on formal authority structure
● Protective laws at workplace (Code on Wages; Industrial Relations Code;
Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code; Code on Social
Security)

❖ It has certain distinct characteristics. They are - Legal Status, Division of

Work, Primacy of Structure, Permanence and Rules and Regulations.

❖ David Silverman has given 3 distinguishing features of a formal organisation:

● They arise at an ascertainable moment in time.
● They exhibit patterns of social relations which are
less taken for granted than those in non- formal
organisations (such as family) and which
organisational participants often seek to coordinate
and control.
 ● Considerable attention is paid to these social relations and to plan
changes in them.

❖ Arguments against formal (rational) organisation:

● Ritzer - McDonaldization. Increasing rationality leads to irrational
outcomes and it is dehumanising.
● Peter Blau on the other hand, studied informal relations within formal
organisations and found that they actually tend to increase the efficiency
of workers instead of pulling it down. Informal networks bring life into the
organisations.
● Elton Mayo’s study of ‘Human Relations’- Study of Hawthrone works of
GE in Chicago: It came as a response to classical theory which laid
emphasis on formal structure. Mayo believed classical school
underemphasized socio-psychological aspects of informal organisation.
He found that work satisfaction depended largely upon informal social
pattern of work group

He performed some experiments like illumination

experiment (which studied the impact of physiological
aspects), relay assembly test room experiment (which
studied what impact did change in working conditions -
financial, rest periods etc. have on morale), mass
interviewing program - found that hearing grievances
alone may increase their morale. He did not reject
classical theory completely, but tried to close its gaps, and
thus his theory is called neo-classical theory.

Critique of Mayo: lacks scientific validity, Marxists find it

just another way to exploit by de-emphasizing economic
factors, it ignored environmental factors (found that
working conditions, rest hours etc. did not boost morale),
behaviour of workers in experiments was not natural,
over-concerned with happiness

● Racism, sexism so not necessarily the most efficient and competent

hired.

❖ Laws-
● There are a number of laws governing work in the
organised sector.
● We can divide these legislations into two groups, one
dealing with the regulation of work and the other dealing
with social security.
★ In the first group we can place the Acts such as
Factories Act, Industrial Disputes Act, Minimum
Wages Act, Shops and Establishment Act,
Workmen’s Compensation Act, Contract Labour
Regulation and Equal Remuneration Act and so
on
 ★ Acts such as Payment of Bonus Act, Employees
Provident Fund Act, Employees Family Pension
Scheme, Employees State Insurance Act,
Payment of Gratuity Act and others fall in the
second category.

● Women - Equal Remuneration Act, Minimum Wages Act, Maternity

Benefits Act.
★ Increasing emphasis is now given to organisation and
mobilisation of unorganised women workers in order to give
them voice and collective strength for the improvement of their
working conditions and wages. A few organisations like
Self-employed Women's Association (SEWA), Ahmedabad,
Working Women's Forum (WWF), Madras, Annapurna Mahila
Mandal (AMM), Bombay and several grassroots organisations
have mobilised urban and rural poor women workers in order to
strengthen their bargaining capacities and improve their access
to credit and other resources. SEWA is a trade union of over
40,000 poor women workers in Gujarat. has a membership of
15,000 women and has now spread its activities to Andhra
Pradesh and Karnataka. Women have struggled for land
ownership, minimum wages, access to forest produce, water
resources, rights of hawkers and vendors etc. The revitalization
of women's movement in the 1970s and 1980s, has resulted in
an increasing awareness about women's rights and their
participation in local and larger struggles.

Informal Organisation of Work

❖ Synonymously used with term- unorganised sector

❖ Features:
● Based on social contracts in which rules are implied rather
than stated
● Escapes the legislations and rules of the land
● Low social security as employment terms are uncertain
and little benefits given to employees in case of
exigencies
❖ Present where labour supply is higher- workers accept any
working conditions, workers (particularly women and children)
prone to exploitations- more found in developing countries (India-
90%+)
❖ When informal organisations grow big require formal rules and
procedures of work for better task management
❖ Peter Blau, in his ‘The Dynamics of Bureaucracy’- ‘informal
structures exist even in formal organisations’. Hence, they can’t
be strictly separated from each other.
❖ ILO’s definition of IS (2002)- broadly characterised as consisting
of units engaged in the production of goods or services, with the
primary objective of generating employment and income to the
 persons concerned. This sector encompasses a range of
vulnerabilities & deficits in decent work.
❖ In 1970, J. Keith Hart, an anthropologist, was working for a research project of
the ILO in Ghana; was the first to coin the term- informal sector
Hart noted certain characteristics of the informal sector that make
workers in this sector different from the formal sector. These are:

1. Low levels of skill - Workers in this sector have low

levels of education and thus they have low skills. This is
the reason why they are engaged in jobs involving low
technology. Workers in the formal sector have a higher
degree of skill and their position in the labour force is
better.
2. Easy entry/less entry barriers - Getting work in the informal sector is
comparatively easier than in the formal sector.
an able-bodied person, irrespective of the skills possessed can become a
day labourer. With minimum investment the same person can become a
street vendor and sell her/his wares at the market. The person need not
have money to invest in a shop. In this way the informal sector is able to
absorb more workers who would normally not get any work because they
are either not qualified or they do not have capital for investing in
business.
3. Low paid employment - Because of the requirement of
low skills and the easy entry, work in the informal sector
has low returns. Workers who offer their labour are not
paid high wages. In fact, the biggest grievance against
this sector is that the wages are many times below
sustenance level. In many cases, low wages drive other
members of the family into the informal work force
because the main wage earned is not sufficient for
sustaining a household. In this sense, children too may be
encouraged to join the labour force.
4. The fourth characteristic of the informal sector is that it is
largely composed of immigrant labour. Hart found that
the informal sector workers in Ghana had come to the city
from the rural areas. As mentioned earlier, workers and
small traders in the city came from the rural areas in
search of a livelihood. He hence included migrant status
as a characteristic of the informal sector.

❖ Sharit Bhowmik says there are two kinds of informal sector:

● Informal Economy - includes street vendors, home based workers,
rickshaw pullers, etc.
● Informal Employment - includes casual and contract
labourers in the formal economy as their working
conditions and wages are similar to that of the
informal sector.

❖ Informal Sector in Urban Economy - Jan Breman (Handbook of Indian

Sociology)
 ● High rate of urbanisation is not marked with an equivalent
rise in formal sector employment. He describes the
informal sector as a colourful arrangement of irregularly
working people that scratches around for a living close to
or at the bottom of the urban society, where life and work
are both precarious.
● He proposes a formal-informal continuum:
★ Difficult to demarcate between informal and
formal as both overlap and are interdependent.
★ Though the top and bottom of an urban
economy can be easily distinguished, there is a
diffusion zone where formal and informal labour
may be together and there is no dividing line.

● He classifies the majority of the so-called

self-employed as camouflaged wage labourers. For
example: rickshaw pullers and auto drivers with vehicles
on rent or street vendors who get specific products from
larger retailers.

❖ Breman identifies certain distinct characteristics of informal sector:

● Composed of heterogeneously composed categories of
working people who have no formal training
● No source of
income apart
from own
labour
● Much higher
participation of
women and
children
● Low status attached with informal self-employment
● He divided informal sector into:
★ Petty bourgeoisie - self-employment, brokers, contractors,
agents.
★ Sub-proletariat - casual and unskilled; move from
one place to another for employment; have
temporary employment.
★ Paupers - lumpen drags of society whose
presence nobody values. Totally alienated
from consumption and labour itself.
● He maintains that there is fluidity among the above class
structure though drastic upward / downward mobility is
rare.
❖ Another section of the informal sector is the street vendors. They work on the
streets because they are unable to get regular jobs. Street vendors can be found
in almost all cities, in developed and less developed countries. One can find them
in crowded marketplaces selling a variety of less expensive goods and food. Most
of these people are immigrants from less developed regions who have migrated
in search of better life chances
 The total employment provided through street vending becomes larger if we
consider the fact that it sustains certain industries by marketing their products. A
lot of the goods sold by street vendors, such as clothes and hosiery, leather and
moulded plastic goods, household goods and some items of food, are
manufactured in small scale or home-based industries. These industries engage
a large number of workers but they could have hardly marketed their products on
their own. In this way street vendors provide a valuable service by helping sustain
employment in these industries. Lower income groups spend a higher proportion
of their income in making purchases from street vendors mainly because their
goods are cheap and thus affordable.

❖ The founder of SEWA, Ela Bhatt, notes in her memoirs that the informal sector
includes a significant category of people who were earlier employed in the formal
sector but were laid off because of shutting down of factories, for example: Textile
mills in Ahmedabad and Mumbai with popularity of synthetic yarn.

❖ Naila Kabeer has done a study of Bangladeshi women engaged in the garment
industry in London and Dhaka. She says that as most women find their
employment in the informal sector, this has helped in increasing their
autonomy, but the work conditions are harsh and they usually face health
issues.

❖ A 2012 working paper identifies 4 reasons for existence of informal sector:

1. The Dualist School-informal sector workers excluded from mainstream
eco opportunities due to imbalance b/w population growth rate and
industrial employment growth rates on one hand and a mismatch
between people’s skills and structure of eco opportunities on the other
hand
2. The Structuralist School- informal sector- subordinate eco entities and
workers- reduce input and labour costs- increasing competitiveness of
large capitalist firms. IS= essential feature of a globalised free market
economy.
3. The Legalist School- small entrepreneurs choose to operate informally
to cut costs, time and effort of formal registration
4. The Voluntarist School- informal entrepreneurs deliberately seeking to
avoid complex taxation system and regulations, differs from the legalists
in the sense that it doesn’t blame the bureaucratic processes but operate
like this after undertaking cost-benefit analysis

Linkages b/w organized and unorganized sectors

The two sectors are linked to each other as they depend on each other in their
production process. The organized sector gets inputs and components at
cheaper rates from the unorganised sector while the latter depends on the former
for marketing its products. At the same time the large number of casual and
contract labour in the organized sector shows that there is an unorganized sector
within the organized sector. Though the two sectors are linked to each other, their
 relationship is not on an equal basis. The unorganized sector and its labour are
in a weaker position.

Over the last decades there has been a shift to what is often called ‘flexible
production’ and ‘decentralization of work’. It is argued that in this period of
globalization, it is the growing competition between firms and countries that
makes it essential for firms to organize production suiting the changing market
conditions.

Instead of mass production of goods at a centralized location (Fordism), we have

moved to a system of flexible production at dispersed locations (post-Fordism).

Other aspects (including some new laws passed)-

● Govt enacted in 2019 and 2020- Code on Wages,

Industrial Relations Code, Occupational Safety, Health
and Working Conditions Code and Code on Social
Security (CSS) (it amalgamates and rationalises
provisions of 8 existing central labour laws); provisions:
★ Enhanced industrial security
★ SS to gig workers
★ Recognition of trade unions by employers

● EPF, ESI, MBA, Gratuity- entirely for organised sector

workers
★ Under the SS code, maternity benefit provision
applicable for establishments (does not include
unorganised sector) employing 10 and more than
10 workers

● Biggest roadblock to extension of SS to unorganised

sector/informal worker is the prerequisite of registration as
beneficiaries
● Inter-state cooperation for extension of benefits to informal
workers is urgently required as they are casual, footloose
labourers spread across the length of the country
(immigrant)

Labour and Society

❖ Labour different from worker in respect of choice to work (labour lacks it due to
unavailability of alternate employment avenue or due to social exploitation).
Therefore, the term ‘labour’ used wrt child, agri, bonded- having difft connotation
from industrial worker.
❖ In modern industries, 2 dimensions of work:
1. Human labour
2. machines
❖ Characteristic of industrial societies:
● Marketing of human labour
 ● High division of labour in modern societies

❖ Labour in modern societies- left the atmosphere of home & shifted to workplace,
labour now= sold in the market & not used solely for domestic production
❖ Marx-
● Peculiar of humans, animals incapable of producing it
● Capable of turning into reality what previously existed only in our
imagination- objectification of our purpose
● It’s inclusive of all productive activities that transform material aspects of
nature according to our purpose
● It’s the development of human’s potential and power
● Labour also transforms the society, not just individual
● Labour in capitalism is not owned by workers. To survive, workers forced
to sell labour to capitalists

❖ Hegel- viewed labour in terms of ideas (in non-material terms). Labour= mental
labour
❖ Harry Braverman- Fordism and automation= deskilling of labour.
Due to specialised production, labour has lost control over his skill, learns just a
part of production activity- increasing dependence on capitalists
❖ Counter argument to above given by Handy, in ‘The Empty Raincoat’ -
organisations today require multi-skilled workers (portfolio workers) and hence
labour is quite flexible today, it has 2 effects:
● Workers given choice to enjoy different works
● Employers can hire and fire at will

❖
❖ Michael Burawoy (rejects Marxian arguments on disadvantaged position of
labour)- labour unions emergence has eliminated arbitrary powers of
management. Workers, at least in part, consent to working hard in capitalism & at
least a part of this consent- produced in the workplace.
❖ Durkheim- DoL- interdependency produced in the modern society thereby
increasing its integration

❖ Labour in modern society- high division in factory 7 workplace- suitable for

modern mass production (Fordism & Taylorism). Labour- standardised & work
processes- pre defined so inflexible
❖ Argument- Fordism is on decline, we’re entering Post-Fordism- renewed focus on
customised production, flexibility @ workplace & more differentiation of work
❖ Feminist perspective-
Ann Oakley- industrialization confined women to home (were housewives)
Recent studies- women’s participation in workforce is on the rise but occupational
segregation is there
 ❖ Service sector-
● Labour is not just physical now
● Arlie Hochschild (study of Delta Airlines)- service industry requires more
manipulation of emotions
● C W Mill- white- collar workers carry artificial smiles, leading artificial
lives. Professional man is enslaved by social conditions
● Decline of old factory production- decline of trade unionism- reduced
bargaining power of labour.
Other factors eroding bargaining power of labour- flexible production,
liberal labour laws and global competition

❖ Globalisation of labour-
● Highly mobile labour
● Industries, in highly competitive modern world, shift their operations for
cheap production leading to degradation of labour (evidenced by rise in
sweatshops in China, other emerging economies)

❖ Prior to the development of industrial capitalism, work-rhythms were set by

factors such as the period of daylight, the break between tasks and the
constraints of deadlines or other social duties. Factory production implied the
synchronisation of labour — it began punctually, had a steady pace and took
place for set hours and on particular days of the week. In addition, the clock
injected a new urgency to work. For both employer and employee ‘time is now
money: it is not passed but spent.’

CHAPTER-7 Politics and Society

Sociological Theories of Power

❖ Power- ability/capacity to control others residing in an individual’s status or

position in relation to status and position of other individuals
❖ Power- can be coercion or authority
❖ Authority- form of power accepted as legitimate

❖ Classical theoretical perspectives on power:

● Weber- it’s a constant sum game (one exercising at the cost of other as
power in a system is limited in quantum); described 3 bases of
legitimate power i.e authority:
★ Traditional
★ Charismatic
★ Legal-rational

2nd impt implication of Weber’s definition- power holders will tend to use
power for furthering their own interests (power’s utility= furtherance of
sectional interests of particular groups)

● Functionalists-
★ power rests with society and is a variable sum game
★ it increases with collective welfare.
 ★ It’s difficult for societies to exercise power by themselves, hence
important functional positions created to exercise it.
★ Used in society to attain collective goals (no winning elites or
losing masses)
Parsons- his view of power developed from his general theory of
evolution of society
★ Assumption- value consensus essential for social
system’s survival
★ Collective goals, shared by society members, derived
from these shared values (ex- West’s value of
materialism from which collective goals of eco expansion
& higher living standards emerge)
★ More realisation of goals- more power resides in social
system (ex- rising living stds & eco growth= indicate inc
power in society)
★ Since goals shared by all members, power will be used for
collective benefit of all (ex- politicians promoting policies
for eco expansion), so exercise of power is a win-win for
all
★ This forms basis of cooperation, which necessitates
positions of command therefore some granted power to
direct others, essential for society’s well-being
(variable-sum concept- power isn’t fixed but can
increase or decrease)
★ Above power seen as legitimate as it’s helping in
furtherance of collective goals
Ex- just like money deposited in bank- power vested in pol
leaders by society members, money’s withdrawal-
withdrawal of support by the electorate at the next
election, money generates interest for the
depositor-power granted generates benefits for the
electorate as it’s used in furthering collective goals
★ Criticism- he has done lil more than translate into socio
jargon rationalisations promoted by the power- holders to
justify their use of power.
He has failed to appreciate that power- frequently used to
further sectional interests than benefit society as a whole

● Marxists- see power not as legitimate but coercive towards have-nots

★ Not a societal resource held in trust, tool by dominants to subdue
commoners
★ Haves’ interests in conflict with subjects of power
★ Source of power- eco infra but extends to all other aspects of life
★ Ruled accepts power of ruling- due to false consciousness
★ Way to return power to people- communal ownership of FoP
through revolution

● Elite Theories-
★ 2 categories- classical and pluralistic
 ❖ French and Raven gave 5 bases of power:
● Legitimate- person in power has formal right to make demands and
expect compliance with those (govt sanctioned institutions)
● Referent- result of person’s attributes resulting into perceived
attractiveness, worthiness & right to others’ respect; synonymous with
Charismatic power
● Expert- rests upon person’s high level skills and knowledge (such power
valued greatly in a knowledge eco)
● Reward- ability of person to favourably compensate another for
compliance of rules (supervisory authorities in organisations)
● Coercive- results from the belief- person can punish others for
non-compliance (police, judiciary)

❖ Gene Sharp, in ‘From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework

for liberation’ contended that all power structures rely on obedience of subjects;
his work influential in overthrowing- Slobodan Milosevic in 2011 Arab Spring

❖ Tim Gee- power also possessed by the oppressed (counter- power)- to

countervail power of elites, manifested during protests

❖ Michael Mann-
● Identifies multiple bases in terms of overlapping socio-spatial networks of
power
● Power- ability to pursue & attain goals through mastery of the envt
● Held by ind (distributional p.) & collectivites (collective p.)
● Way of exercising- extensive (power’s reach) & intensive (power’s impact)
● When manifested & deliberately followed- Authoritative p., if subtle &
spontaneous- diffused p.
● 4 sources- eco, pol. Ideological & military
● Critique- in a globalised world- transnational cos & org also exercise
significant p

Power Elite

Classical Elite Theory

❖ Differs from Pluralism and Functionalism- sees power in society as being

monopolised by a small minority (or elite). Sees society as divided into 2 main
groups- a ruling minority (exercising power through the state) & the ruled.
❖ Developed in reaction to Marxism, rejected the idea of classless society after a
class struggle
❖ Propounded by 2 Italian Sociologists, both believed:
● source- personal superior qualities of those constituting the elite
● People being unequal- some would always have more abilities than
others- occupy elite positions
● Apart from personal qualities, elite owe power to internal organisation
(united cohesive minority formed by them against
unorganised/fragmented masses)
● Elite rule- inevitable, no possibility of a proletarian rev to est communist
society (therefore never saw attempts to end it as desirable)
 1. Vilfredo Pareto, in ‘Mind and Society’- personal qualities separate
rulers and ruled while remaining same at all times
● There is- a ruling minority and ruled majority
● Situation inevitable, even in communism- have-nots occupying
dominant positions
● 2 types of governing elite (concept taken from Machiavelli)-
★ Lions- rule by force, have residue of persistence, faith in
ideology and group loyalty
★ Foxes- rule by cunningness, imaginative, have
materialistic goals, emotional appeal to defraud others,
replace lions through manipulative skills (ex- Chanakya)

● Both of these replace each other- Circulation of Elites

● Masses lack rationality, hence, unlikely to be a revolutionary force
● Social change- elite begins to degenerate and replaced by
another elite from higher elements of masses
● All elites tend to become decadent due to complacency, each
lacks qualities of the other
● Criticism- no distinction among various forms of rules; criticism
by Mills-
★ elites have no psychological superior qualities
★ Elite rule- not inevitable
★ Masses not incompetent (they’re kept ignorant and
powerless)

2. Gaetmo Mosca, in ‘The Ruling Class’- doesn’t believe in qualities of

elites remaining same all the time in all the societies
● Democracy- a form of elite rule (reflecting concerns of elite,
masses- passive and unconcerned)
● Elite in modern societies- open groups, drawn from various social
backgrounds hence view of various strata represented to some
degree in decision-making
● Elites possess organisational abilities (inequality as some would
have more ability than others)
Michels supported their views- studied the socialist parties in
Europe- all develop dominant elite at organisation’s top despite
propagating socialist ideology (iron law of oligarchy- tendency of
parties to become bureaucratic in structure with power
concentrated in few)

❖ Later versions of Elite theory- less emphasis on personal qualities, more on

institutional framework of society
● C W Mills , in ‘The Power Elite’- didn’t believe in inevitability of elite rule
★ It's a recent phenomena of American society
★ Power among elites in USA- institutionalised, not psychological
★ Power monopolised by holders of top positions (command
positions) of these institutes

★ 3 such key institutions-

 1. Military
2. Federal Govt.
3. Major corporations
★ Interests of elites in these institutions- similar, together form
minority- Power Elite (coincidence of eco, military and political
power)
★ PE- cohesiveness strengthened by the same social background,
members interchange among each other, sharing of similar values
& sympathies= basis for mutual trust & cooperation; have
unprecedented power but little accountability even while taking
momentous decisions affecting large no of people (ex- American
entry into 2nd WW)

★ Things hadn’t been same since beginning, PE- owed dominance

to change in institutional landscape
➔ Eco power fragmented among small businesses (19th C)
➔ Concentrated in hands of few giant corporations (1950s)-
which together hold the key to eco decisions
➔ Political power localised by state govts having greater
independence, fed govt eroded autonomy of states-
power became centralised
➔ Intl conflict threats increased the size and power of
military replacing local, state-controlled militia
These developments led to concentration of power in
hands of few command posts of key institutions
★ Bulk of the population pictured as- mass subjected to instruments
of psychic mgmt and manipulation. Men in the mass told- what to
think, do, hope for by a mass media directed by the elite

★ Unconcerned with major issues- man in mass preoccupied with

personal world of work, leisure, fam; free from popular control- PE
pursued its own concerns (power & self-aggrandisement)

★ His theory supported by Floyd Hunter- power rests with a small

decision-making group dominated by the business class

❖ (Comparison of ideas of all 3 theorists- table on Pg. 179, NS)

❖ Criticism:
● Robert Dahl, in ‘Who Governs’- power dispersed in society, no
circumstantial evidence for Mills’ arguments
● Theory of Mills- narrow, focus only on American society
● David Riesman- US society is diverse in terms of thoughts and interests
● Classical elite theory- ignores differences b/w various types of ruling
system
● No method for measuring and distinguishing b/w superior qualities of
elites (P & M); undue emphasis on psycho characteristics by Pareto
● T B Bottomore- elite circulation may not always be there (ex- Brahmins
in India)
 ● Altruistic motives exist, power alone not guiding force
● Westergaard and Resler- power lies not in decision-makers but in
consequences (reaper of largest rewards- most powerful)

Pluralist Thesis of Power/ Community Power Thesis

❖ Contrast to elite and Marxian theory- power is concentrated in hands of few,

explains distribution of power in modern democracies esp Western

❖ Bears some similarity to the Parsonian functionalist theory in 3 respects:

● govt/state in W. Democracy act in interests of society and its members
● Political systems of US, UK, France- most advanced- effective way for
population to exercise power and govern country
● State’s exercise of power- legitimate, based on acceptance and
cooperation of population

❖ Agree with Weber’s fixed concept of power and disagree with functionalist’s
variable sum concept of power
❖ Though some interests are shared commonly by the society, there’s no
all-embracing value consensus wrt every issue as told by Parsons.
❖ Industrial society differentiated into various social groups and sectional interests,
power held by each different occupation
❖ Absence of single dominant group (trade unions, pressure groups, professional
associations)- so there’s bargaining and compromise
❖ Even the same individual may have different interests acc. to roles played by him
at difft. places
Ex-a male while being a:
● A manual worker has int in- min wage
● car owner- road tax
● father of 2 children- reduction in student fees
● mortgage payer- interest rates etc

❖ Founder of pluralist perspective, de Tocqueville- democratic political system has

individuals with large no of specific interests; democracy, unworkable- if
dominated by a single division- causing tyranny of majority (faced by countries
facing split b/w 2 major ethnic or religious groups)
❖ Practical exemplification of this theory- pressure groups
❖ All groups can’t exercise power hence they field their representatives acting like
elites- multiple elites- elite pluralism
❖ Govt.- mediator b/w difft. elite groups (Raymond Aron- Govt.- a business of
compromise)
❖ Give empirical evidence to support claim that W societies governed by
democratic principles (govt policies reflect compromise b/w sectional interests);
concentrate on first face of power- decision making
❖ Proponents-
● Robert Dahl- elite theory confuses potential control with actual, in ‘Who
Governs’- local politics is a business of bargaining, used his decision
making model, eco factors- not sole in decision-making
 ● Arnold M Rose, in ‘The Power Structure’- multiple influence
hypothesis, eco and political elite don’t work hand in glove as told by
Mills
● Karl Mannheim-pulls and pressures shape policy in a democracy despite
being formed by elites, aspirations of people expressed at regular
intervals (elections) to keep elites in check
● Anthony, Downs in ‘An Economic Theory of Democracy’- producers
and consumers defend their interests in mkt, trade unions do so in politics
to defend interests of their members, workers
● Multi-party democracy like India

❖ Criticism:
● Ignore non-decision and safe decision making
John Urry- pluralists ignore the possibility of some having the power to
prevent issues from reaching the point of decision-making; as a result of
this non-decision making, only safe decisions may be taken

● Steven Lukes- Pluralists do no account for possibility of opinion polls or

preferences of pressure groups being manipulated by those with real
power (controlling institutions like media, edu that shape individual’s
attitudes/opinions)
● Ignore results and consequences in which power is manifested-
Westergaard & Resler (despite abundant legislations for improving the
lot of poor, there has been lil redistribution of wealth)
● Robert Michels- representatives of people may usurp power and pursue
vested interests, ignoring that of public
● Some interest groups have more influence over govt decisions than
others, state doesn’t act impartially as an honest-broker
Wynn Grant- eco policy in contemporary Britain influenced by political
and financial elites (by the treasury, PM, Bank of England)
Further contends that eco policies also influenced by int’l organisations
(WB, IMF, OECD) than by pressure groups

● Also the assumption- major interests are represented by 1 group or the

other- not true (unemployed- lack a protective PG to rep them, lil
power/political influence-refugees, asylum seekers)

● Pluralist’s view that democracy thrives through people’s participation is

becoming questionable with reduced voter turnout, fallen membership of
political parties and disillusionment with politics in recent years

Bureaucracy
❖ Modernisation- glorified rationalism- growth of organisations based on legal
rational authority (bureaucracy)
❖ Weber- purest type of exercise of legal authority with a hierarchy of paid, full-time
officials, who form a chain of command
❖ Dominant form of institutions in modern industrial society- high DoL, high
efficiency in rationally organised work envt
❖ Weber- its expansion- inevitable in modern societies as bureaucratic authority-
only way of coping with large-scale admin requirements in such societies.
❖ Elements/characteristics of B (highlighted by Weber in Theory of Social & Eco
Org):
● Org based on L-R authority
● Division of complex tasks into manageable parts-manned by difft
officials- specialisation in a particular area
● Hierarchical organisation of officers with clearly defined responsibilities
● B- permanently employed, paid in cash
● Separation of work & personal life of officials. Impersonal performance
of duties- no tradtional/affective influence
● Merit, technical k, expertise- basis of selections of officers
● Rules & regulations followed by officers

❖ Weber was also aware of limitations- produces specialists w/out spirit, snatches
discretion of individuals trapping in iron cage of rationality, reduced to cogs in
giant machines, B= detrimental to individual creativity
Accountability can be ensured by strong parliamentary govt through
parliamentary committees, professionals outside the system (politicians,
scientists, intellectuals, capitalists)
❖ Paul Du Gay, in ‘In Praise of Bureaucracy’- it has unmatched ethos- equal
treatment to all, limitations due to more politcisation
❖ Stewart R Clegg- almost all organised institutions rely on bureaucratic structures
to manage info and administer complex system
❖ Criticism:
● Vincent de Gournay- called developing power of officials an illness-
bureaumania
● Honore de Balzac- B is a giant power wielded by pygmies
● Marxists- represent interests of ruling class as a state B is shaped by a
capitalists infra, control can be eliminated by change in infra
Lenin- solution to eliminate technical hurdles- simplification of admin
tasks where basic literacy and numeracy sufficient for performance,
encourage mass participation in admin

● Robert Michels- iron law of oligarchy

● Peter Blau, in ‘The Dynamics of Bureaucracy’- difft in working than in

concept as there’s an informal organisation as well; while studying
Federal Law Agencies- informal hierarchies present within bureaucracy to
deal with unforeseen issues. Presence of formal structures alone may
even hinder the achievement of organisational goals.
● Merton, in ‘STSS’- it has dysfunctional aspects also, rigidity in means
leads to goals displacement
● Alvin Gouldner, in ‘Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy’- exists in
varying degrees across organisations, gypsum plant study- formal
organisations don’t work with equal efficiency in all situations, work in
Gypsum mines hampered when totally formal organisational rules were
implemented.
● Burns and Stalker- certain industries (electronics) change quickly, hence
unsuitable for formal bureaucratic structure
Pressure Groups/Interest Groups

❖ Forms of organisations exerting pressure on political/admin system of country to

extract benefits by advancing own interests
❖ Formed both by dominant (for concessions) and deprived (for basic amenities in
a competing envt)
❖ Have come up due to
● Scarce resources and competing interests
● Inability of state in satisfying needs of all sections (lack of capacity and
resources, info asymmetry)
❖ Different from political parties in the sense that-
● don’t aim to capture power
● flexible in mobilising support
● don’t usually rep wide range of interests rather rep particular interest

❖ Existence- validation of Pluralistic Elite Theory (act as multiple centres of power

in modern liberal democracies)
❖ May be transitive (social movements) or institutionalised (WSF as
counter-narrative to WEF)
❖ Classified in various manners depending on objectives, organisation and
working; for ex-
● Maurice Duverger- 2 types
★ Promotional- promote some cause (ex- PETA, Greenpeace),
have wider membership since joining only requires a commitment
to the cause
★ Protective- defend interests of a particular section,ex- trade
unions, ASSOCHAM, CII; membership limited to individuals of a
particular status
Practically, distinction b/w above 2- not clear cut as defence of an
interest also involves its promotion
● Gabriel, Powell-
★ Institutional- PGs within institutions (in army, bureaucracy, ICC in
edu institutions)
★ Associational- with similar class positions (trade unions,
business orgs)pursuing limited goals
★ Non- Associational- similar ascriptive positions (based on
ethnicity, religion), ex- Jat Andolan, Dalit Panthers
★ Anomic- forming spontaneously (riots, militant demonstrations)

❖ Methods used vary-

● Cordial rapport with political party
● Putting views before legislature, petitions, writing letters
● Civil disobedience, protests (agitation based methods)
● Bribery (a dubious method along with pol funding)
● Political funding- trade union contri to Labour party, businesses to
Conservatives
● Appealing to public opinion- effective esp if it attracts widespread media
coverage & its arguments deemed as valid
 Ex- a campaign by rock musicians @ the1999 Brit awards for cancelling a
chunk of 3rd world’s debt
● Provision of expertise- govts can’t function in modern industrial
societies w/out specialised knowledge of interest groups thereby
influencing govt policy (ex- inclusion of farm union reps in panel formed
for better MSP provisioning by the Indian govt)
● Attracting attention through mass media- reach and speed mobilises
public opinion quickly

❖ Role of PGs-
1. For parties-
● Funds and resources
● Policy feedback mechanism
● Constructive criticism
● Conduit for opinion transition

2. For society-
● Control individualism
● Grievance venting organ
● Represent sectional interests
● Check elite rule/authoritarianism
● Transmit public opinion
● Sensitise people
● Represent disadvantaged

❖ Interest Groups and Democracy (pluralistis elite view)

● Voting- minimal participation in politics by society members, once in every
5 years participation- inadequate
● Allow non-members of political parties to participate in politics
● Even those who’ve voted for govt may not agree with all its policies, IGs
alter some parts while retaining others (ex- labour & farm unions affiliated
to ruling party in India voiced apprehensions against the 4 labour codes &
now repealed 3 farm laws)
● Those who voted for losing party- opportunity to make voices heard
● Large no. and diversity of PGs allow all sections of society a say in
politics
● Allow public to make govt know its views in changing circumstances or
with emergence of new issues (ex- climate change dominating the
policies of major emitters, LGBTQ groups batting for decriminalisation of
same-sex relationships)
● Mobilise public concern over issues lying neglected since long (ex-,
recent ‘argalaya’ by SL protestors against price rise & pol corruption)

❖ Limitations:
● Make representative democracy biased in favour of some sections at
expense of interests of other deprived sections (ex- recent SC directive to
compulsorily demarcate the 1 km boundary of PA in Kerala as ESZ-
detrimental to the livelihoods of nearby dwellers)
● Maybe organised around narrower reasons (religion,
regional,caste,ethnic)
 ● Lack of resources- sporadic and short-lived
● Unable to face state repression sometimes and movement fizzles out

❖ May develop into political parties through open, less restricted platform (Akali Dal
in India)
❖ Some have special relationship with a political party (trade unions and Labour
Party of Britain)

Political Parties

❖ It is seen as an organisation of people interested in and working

to control or influence the power structure of a community or
society in a way they regard as best for their interest and
presumably for the best interest of the community.

❖ Jean Jacques Rousseau had created this vision that in theory denies the
legitimacy of conflicts and defines democracy as the identity of the government
and the citizens. This concept does not accept a plurality of parties. They are not
regarded as legitimate, as they would inevitably falsify the “common will” by their
particular behaviour. Deviations from the imposed and mandatory common good
are not tolerated by this theory.

However, it is obvious that this concept is characteristic of totalitarian states where the diversity
of parties is banned and where the “common will” is defined only by a small ruling elite.
Consequently, totalitarian states are identified with Rousseau. It should be noted that even
Rousseau could not clarify how this “common sense” would be discovered and decided. We
have to be aware that modern societies are characterised by a diversity of interests and
world-views. They need political parties as central instances for the representation of this
diversity of interests within the political system.

❖ Weber- An organised structure which promotes candidates, contest elections for

the aim of capturing power
Weber on Parties:
Whereas the genuine place of classes is within the economic order, the place of status groups is
within the social order. But parties live in a house of power. Party actions are always directed
towards a goal which is striven for in a planned manner. The goal may be a ‘cause’ (the party may
aim at realising a program for ideal or material purposes), or the goal may be ‘personal’
(sinecures, power, and from these, honour for the leader and followers of the party).

❖ Common Characteristics:
● Organised form of people
● Has ideology and principles
● Works under constitutional structure of a nation
● Aim- form govt through legitimate means (contesting elections)
● Mobilises public opinion
● In opposition- keep ruling party under check & discipline the reps

❖ Contrary to interest groups, a party is expected to express itself

on all issues relevant for government. One expects parties to
propose views on domestic and foreign policies, economic and
social policies, and youth and civil policies, etc. In order to meet
 these requirements, each party should have a programme, in
which its fundamental positioning in various areas is retained.
Furthermore, one expects a party to have a consistent
organisation.

❖ Have become impt in modern democracies as demo have become

representative- PPs are medium providing uniform representation

❖ Functionalists- PPs are guardians of power in society and use it for society’s
collective well-being

❖ From the classical pluralist perspective, competition

between two or more political parties is an essential feature
of representative government.

Pluralists claim that political parties in democratic societies are representative for
the following reasons:

1. The public directly influences 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 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
since, to be elected to power, they require the support of
various interests in society.

❖ Robert Dahl, in ‘Who Governs’- PPs act as linkage b/w govt and people,
provide platform for interest articulation

● Classified them into 2 types:

★ Exterior- emerging due to outside influence (CPI, India due to
CPC, Russia)
★ Interior- Communist Party of USSR

❖ Political parties in India (box, Pg. 186-NS)

Sudipto Kaviraj & Zoya Hasan- multi-party system- true reflection of India’s
multi-culturalism and maturity of Indian democracy
❖ Robert Michels- iron law of oligarchy

❖ Lester Milbrath- classified 4 types of political participation:

● Political apathetic- people unaware, public participation in politics
discouraged (autocracy)
● Political spectators- people take part in polling and general discussion
only, in stable political systems or lack of choice situation
 ● Transitional activists- attend political meetings and raise funds,
turbulence may lead to activism in politics (Jan Lokpal Movement)
● Gladiators- enter politics and contest elections

❖ PPs are also defined in terms of serving interests- acc to this, people take PP’s
membership or vote for a party to achieve their ind/group interests.
Counter- ppl also join due to their ideology, prestige & to make sacrifices
❖ Criticism:
● Dye and Zeigler- PPs and elections divert attention of masses from true
nature of elite rule, they are for the creation of excitement, similar to
Roman Circuses, false illusion- power rests with majority by creating false
impression of representation

Nation
❖ Weber- Nation is a community of sentiments
❖ Unlike the state, it’s not a territorial concept; it's associated with sentiments,
aspirations rooted in a common ideology, identity, culture, history etc.
❖ Nation is converted into a State at the time of external aggression. State is
converted into a Nation due to internal disturbances.
❖ Basis of nation- psychological and cultural unity
❖ Ex- Kurds (nation w/out a state)
❖ Chinese nation based on a common ideology
❖ India- composite-culture nationalism
❖ Needs a state for sovereignty which needs it for emotional integrity and internal
harmony
❖ The physical element of sovereignty is not as important as the psychological
element of the feeling of oneness.
❖ Different from 2 concepts:
● Race- classification of groups on fixed bio characteristics, seek to
preserve themselves while nations seek to expand
● Ethnicity- Eriksen in ‘Ethnicity and Nationalism’- similar in terms of
underlying belief (groups based on common beliefs and cultural symbols);
diversion in 2 concepts occurs- when nation has multiple ethnic identities
in it

❖ Nationalism- community of people with common characteristics constitute a

separate and distinctive political community
● Appeared with emergence of modern state
● Ernest Gellner, in ‘Nations and Nationalism’- nation, nationalism and
nation-state are modern concepts starting from late-18th C; his idea of
nationalism:
★ Shared formal edu system
★ Cultural homogenisation
★ Linguistic standardisation
★ National identification as abstract community even relating with
those we haven’t seen
★ Cultural similarity- basis for political legitimacy
 ● Pilkington- humans isolated before industrialisation, spread of
communication facilitated identification of others as totally distinct (other
feeling- precondition for nationalism)
● Anthony Smith , in ‘Ethnic Origin of Nations’- not necessarily a
modern concept, many modern nations emerged from erstwhile ethnic
communities (ex- Germany, Italy)
● Benedict Anderson- it’s an imagined feeling and nation- an imagined
idea (members without knowing fellow ones conjure an image of
communion)
(Anderson on Nationalism- box, Pg. 187- NS)
● Hans Kohn- differentiated b/w Western and Eastern nationalism
● (Nationalism in India- box, Pg. 188- NS)
● Leah Greenfield- distinguishes b/w civic (traced to FR and ideas derived
from it- L,E,F)and ethnic nationalism (Germany)

● Criticism:
★ It will lose it’s existence as contended by:
➔ Liberalists- rising globalisation, weakening of national
borders
➔ Marxists- class dynamics will eclipse national identities

Marx criticised nationalism for hiding the reality of exploitation and oppression.

Eric Hobsbawm- Nationalist ideology represents a bourgeois construct where

capitalism replaced traditional aristocracy and nationalism was the result of
economic capital (capitalists from other countries like Belgium, France, Russia
had started arriving at the boundaries of UK to which capitalists of UK responded
by insisting on developing boundaries of their state from which stems the idea of
citizenship, nation etc.)

★ Rabindranath Tagore-
➔ Society over nation
➔ Society- not formed for ulterior purposes, natural
regulation of human relationships & spontaneous
self-expression of man as a social being
➔ Nation- organisation of people with a mechanical purpose
based on greed, jealousy, suspicion, power lust etc.
➔ Takes away individual’s freedom and is exclusionist,
jingoistic
➔ Citizens under delusion of freedom, which they actually
sacrifice everyday on altar of fetish i.e nationalism

★ Nationalism serves as a source of integration within the state but

it is dangerous when it denies the common interest that binds
nation to nation. Then it becomes ethnocentrism or chauvinism
which is intolerant or imperialism which seeks territorial expansion
and political domination.
 Hayes: nationalism when it becomes synonymous with the purest
patriotism will prove a unique blessing to humanity and to the
world.

State

❖ Term 1st used by Machiavelli in pol science-

● Comprising of institutions governing members w/in a territorial
boundary
● Members w/in a boundary- deemed as citizens enjoying pol, cultural,
religious, social and eco rights
❖ Liberal theorists, Hobbes and Locke- modern states are agency of human
welfare securing life and property of man and state
❖ (Welfare State- box, Pg. 189-NS)
❖ Max Weber- a state is a body that successfully claims a monopoly of legitimate
force in a particular territory.
❖ STATE- A POL APPARATUS (INCL GOVTS, ADMIN ETC.) RULING OVER A
GIVEN TERRITORY WITH AUTHORITY BACKED BY LAW, HAVING POWER
TO USE FORCE
❖ State- consists of the government or legislature which passes laws, the
bureaucracy or civil service which implements governmental decisions, the
police who are responsible for law enforcement, and the armed forces
whose job is to protect the state from external threats.

❖ Citizens depend on state for 2 basic functions:

● Collective welfare of community
● Law and order maintenance

❖ Elements of state (physical + metaphysical)

● Population- a group of human beings shaping state’s collective identity
● Territory- where people permanently reside
● Sovereignty- independence from foreign control
● Govt- pol org/agency through which collective will expressed

❖ It alone possesses coercive authority, Weber- it has monopoly over legitimate

use of violence
❖ Marx- it’s a committee for mgmt of whole affairs of the bourgeoisie
Acc to him, the state is a part of the superstructure, controlled by those who own
means of production. He believed the state to be a sort of conspiracy against the
working class, as the wealth of the bourgeoisie could be used to ensure that
whoever is in power pursues their interests. When the classless society is
established and there is no suppressive function for the state, it would be
required only to perform the economic functions and hence, state would wither
away
❖ Gramsci- state has 2 arenas:
● Political society- what state stands for
● Civil society- institutions falling in private arena
 State- not a set of institutions, represents of activities of dominant class
maintaining its dominance not through the use of force, but through
ideological devices which he terms as hegemony

❖ Functionalists- state integrates inhabitants

● Aristotle- state is prior to individual
● Parsons- state needed for 2 objectives:
★ Determining goals based on value consensus
★ Mobilising resources for fulfilment of those goals

● Durkheim- traced the development of the state to the division of labour in

the society. As societies became more complex, there occurred the
distinction between governing and governed, which in turn resulted in the
formation of state. For him, the function of the state was to mediate
between different interests and in particular to protect the individual
against the power of smaller groups.

❖ Pluralists believe that the state is an honest broker between different conflicting
groups
❖ Saul Newman (anarchist’s perspective)- status apparatus of exploitation and
repression, reject its concept altogether
❖ Harold Laski- way of organising collective life of society
❖ Nation- emotional manifestation of society, state- result of desire for political unity
and supremely regulates society’s structure
❖ Today, performs 2 sets of tasks:
● +ve- welfare measures
● -ve- security and social order maintenance

❖ 2 problems for contemporary state:

● Territorial- posed by globalisation
Leslie Sklair believes that states retain some power, but any
understanding of the global system must focus primarily upon TNCs.
Transnational practices take place in three main spheres - the economic,
the political (political capitalist inspired politician, for ex- a US politician’s
policy which progressed growth of his country inspires an Indian politician
to devise similar policy for his country’s growth) and the
culture-ideological consumerism (rise of consumerism around the world).
These correspond to the practices of - the transnational corporation, the
transnational capitalist class and the culture-ideology of consumerism

Kevin Bonnett warns that globalisation can strengthen local and

small-scale nationalism as a defence

David Held and Anthony McGrew argue that it is possible to

distinguish between two types of theorists of globalisation - the
globalists (believe that globalisation is happening) and the
sceptics (nothing new about migration and global trade yet people
have maintained strong national identities). They believe that both
positions have some merit, but both are open to criticism as well.
 Instead, they argue to adopt a transformationalist stance (there is
nothing new about globalisation and in future, it might change
direction or can be reversed, for ex- BREXIT I.E CLOSING IN OF
ECONOMIES TO REVERSE THE TREND OF GLOBALISATION)
with regards to globalisation.

● Institutional- boundaries blurred b/w state and non- state private actors
(NGOs, civil society, external organisational activities also influence
state’s policies)

Nation- States
❖ Relatively new concept associated with rise of nationalism
❖ Almost all societies exist in this form as boundaries b/w nation and state coincide

❖ They confer citizenship rights as a means of pol unity (state), citizens

declare themselves to be a part of it thereby giving the pol unit emotional
integrity (nation)

❖ Nation is a group of people who feel their uniqueness and oneness which they
are keen to maintain. If this group of people happen to organise themselves on a
particular territory and desire independence or are independent, they form a
nation- state.
● Nationality is subjective, statehood is objective
● Nationality is psychological, statehood is political
● Nationality is a condition of mind whereas statehood is a condition of law
● Nationality is a spiritual possession whereas statehood is an enforceable
obligation
● Sovereignty is emphasised as an essential element of state but not of
nation
❖ Modern nation-states have 3 major characteristics:
● Sovereignty
● Citizenship
● nationalism

❖ It was not true in the past that a state could rep only 1 nation or that every nation
must have its own state (ex- Soviet Union)

❖ Globalisation and the power of the nation - state: John Baylis and Steve Smith
identify a number of ways in which globalisation has led to a new era in politics:
● Economic transformation is so fast that it has created a new world politics
● Electronic communications like internet encourage cross state boundaries
● Global culture, which is reducing the importance of national culture
● Homogenization of people and cosmopolitan culture (state no longer
bound by shared culture, shared language etc.)
● An emergence of global polity due to transnational social movements,
groups and bodies
● Risk culture (Climate change, COVID- some global risks faced by all
states)
Nations without State

❖ Persistence of well- defined ethic community within est nations gives rise to this
phenomena
❖ Essential characteristics of a nation are present but those comprising it lack an
independent pol community
❖ Ex- separatist movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Scotland, erstwhile USSR
states
❖ Advanced stage- nations having a fair separate identity but unrecognised by the
world unanimously (ex- Kosovo and Palestine)
❖ Its difft types:
● Nation state may accept cultural differences found among its
minority/ies and allow them autonomy for community development (ex-
Scotland and Wales in Britain)
● Allowing higher autonomy (ex- Quebec in Canada)
● Nations w/out states completely lacking recognition from the
nation-state which use force to deny recognition (ex- Palestine, Tibet,
Kurds)

Citizenship
❖ Set of rights and duties by virtue of membership to a society
❖ Precondition for citizenship- collective feeling of being part of a single national
identity
❖ Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli- limited citizenship based on edu, wealth and
lineage
❖ Historically, the term- ‘Citizen’ linked with the rise of democracy. The demand for
democratic government came up first in a few western societies, like England,
France and the United States of America. Democracy means that everybody
should have political rights. When one has political rights, the right to vote and
the right to participate in decision making on impt questions facing society, one is
a citizen

❖ T H Marshall defines citizenship in ‘Class, Citizenship and Social

Development’ in terms of membership of a community bringing 3 types of
rights/duties:
1. Civil- emerged with concept of property ownership
2. Political- developed with free speech and equal treatment by universal
adult franchise
3. Social (considered an impt safeguard by Marshall)- rights for welfare and
responsibility for collective provision of social benefits
Marshall contends that these 3 were acquired in order. These were
broadly assigned to the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries respectively.
Criticism of his theory:
● Feminist perspective- women’s acquistion of citizenship
entitlements has not necessarily followed this order
● Only English experience without any comparative analysis
● Unclear about causes of expansion of citizenship
● Marxists critics point out that Marshall's analysis
is superficial, as it does not discuss the right of
the citizen to control economic production, which
 they argue is necessary for sustained shared
prosperity.
●

Some other views of his:

● Contemporary capitalism is antithetical to citizenship (citi= equal
treatment, cap= inequalities); permanent tension b/w the 2
Capitalism inevitably involves inequalities between social classes,
while citizenship involves some redistribution of resources,
because of rights, which are shared equally by all.

❖ Marxists- it’s a myth, no equality in capitalist society, true equality only comes
with collective ownership of FoP otherwise 1st, 2nd class citizens in society
❖ Citizenship acts as a common denominator in a multicultural society, where many
cultural values divide the members, biding the people.
❖ Derek Heater- it’s a democratising force as possessed similarly by everyone
irrespective of status and position
❖ Parsons argues that growth of citizenship is a measure of modernization as it is
based on values of universalism and achievement (as society modernises, it
distances itself from particularism and moves towards universalism and hence,
starts adopting universalistic practices)
❖ It’s seen responsibly now, Mark Smith- stress on ecological citizenship
(obligations towards not just fellow humans but animals and future gen as well)

❖ Guha- citizenship in West awarded in a phased manner, in East awarded

suddenly with independence hence no appreciation
● Active citizenship - achievement of
rights through social struggle -
suffragette movement. Passive
citizenship - handed down from above
by the state - India.

❖ Gail Omvedt- it’s paradoxical in India (theoretically= equal rights, caste

dynamics= make Dalits lesser citizens; similarly in sexual discrimination and
poverty)
❖ Bryan Turner- modern citizenship= passive as no direct democracy, rep
democracy narrows down the scope of various rights & duties

❖ State and Citizenship:

● State is an impt political organisation and mainly
pursues its objectives through law and coercive
action. State role is expanding due to welfarism even
if as a regulator. State and citizen are often at conflict
with each other due to difference of opinion on
morality, private sentiments, aspirations etc. (ex-
Kashmir, Aadhar, IT laws- you are invading in their
private space, infringement on right to privacy of
citizens on pretext of protecting security of state)
(citizens are always trying to extract rights while state
 is always trying to ensure compliance of duties by
citizens)
● The way citizens have certain responsibilities towards the state, the state
also has certain responsibilities towards citizens. For example: availing
them those opportunities necessary for their physical, mental and moral
development. In this way it is a two-way process which develops and
maintains a healthy and balanced society.

❖ Citizenship in a Globalised world:

● With migration and frequent travel, cosmopolitan outlook emerging
leading to- global citizenship like concepts cutting across nation-state
boundaries (EU- ex of TNCitizenship)

● Manuel Castells argue, we are in the information age. Aided by the flow
of people and capital, new social networks are emerging. These seek to
imagine a world without borders. Such a world is obviously too
cosmopolitan to entertain constricted visions of nationalism. What is
needed today is the option to explore multiple identities without creating a
hierarchy of them. Global citizenship endorses this view. It allows people
to be stakeholders in the future of more than one country and culture. It
takes us closer to the Upanishadic vision of vasudhaiva kutumbakam
(the entire world is a one family).

● Yasmin Soysal - with ever increasing globalisation, there is a need of

more universal concept of citizenship based on 'personhood'

● Cohen - argues that a diaspora can emerge from a growing sense of

group ethnic consciousness in different countries, a consciousness that is
sustained by, amongst other things, a sense of distinctiveness, common
history and a belief in common fate.
Democracy

❖ Derived from Latin roots, Demos= people, Kratos= rule (rule by the people)
❖ Informally existed earlier also- Greek City States and ancient Indian Village
Republics
❖ Cleisthenes, a Greek noble- first to come up with this concept in Athens
❖ Unfavourable light- Plato= mobocracy, Machiavelli- strong state should exist;
+vely popularised- Hobbes and Locke, Montesquieu- theory of separation of
powers
❖ Abraham Lincoln- a government for the people, of the people and by the people
❖ People themselves are sovereign, right of self- determination
❖ Gandhi- Democracy is not a legal phenomenon but a spiritual one involving
respect for each other and characterised by decentralisation of power
❖ Larry Diamond- it arrived in waves of democracies (successive wars-
decolonisation- revolutions- socio-religious and eco circumstances)

❖ With ↑population size- indirect/rep democracy has become the predominant

mode, it can be of 2 types:
● Agent based- one who consults the electorate
● Delegate based- decision-making on basis of one’s discretion

❖ Direct/participative democracy exercised on few occasions like referendum,

plebiscite or in smaller countries like Switzerland
❖ Associative democracy- Durkheim stresses on participation via voluntary
organisations

❖ Pluralists- plausible form of governance today (interests of all rep by some elites
and partially controlled by masses through PGs)
● Pluralist view rejected by T B Bottomore- Western govts imperfect
realisations of democracies excluding many in participation in govt
activities, it’s much more than ritualistic elections, believes in social d+
industrial d(true d= people participating in local govt and workers in
workplace mgmt) (Ex- PRI in India)

● Another critique of pluralist theory, Lipset and Coleman- institutions

controlled by eco elite but real d= institutional d

❖ Schmitter and Karl - It is a system of governance, in which rulers are held

accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly
through the cooperation of their elected representatives.

❖ Joseph M Bassette- deliberative democracy- decisions shouldn’t be through

vote aggregation but deliberated upon for merits/demerits of ideas

❖ Liberal democracy today is distinguished from other forms of political system by

certain principles and characteristics, that is, its procedure and institutional
arrangements. Institutions are necessary for the realisation of principles; without
principles, the institutions might be reduced to a mere formality. The two must go
 together. Liberal democracy works on certain principles and certain mechanisms.
Broadly speaking, principles of liberal democracy include:
● Government by consent
● Public accountability
● Majority rule
● Recognition of minority rights
● Constitutional Government
Main characteristics include:
● More than One Political Party Freely Competing for Political Power
● Political Offices Not Confined to any Privileged Class
● Periodic Election Based on Universal Adult Franchise
● Protection of Civil Liberties
● Independence of the Judiciary

❖ Marx- democracy tolerates inequality in eco and pol forms despite espousing
equality
❖ Marxists call democracy an illusion used to sustain the false consciousness
among the masses
❖ Michels- Iron law of Oligarchy
❖ Hans Kelsen- rule of majority through elections leading to tyranny of majority and
minority’s oppression
❖ Poor penetration, World Forum on Democracy- 120/192 countries exhibit
electoral democracies (just 58.2% of the world population, almost half still
deprived of it)

JS Mills, Jeremy Bentham advocated Democracy due to better Rule of Law

and chance for Civil Society to grow up.
But democracies also banning books and autocracies like Syria are seeing CS
rise. Cuba has good HDI in spite of being an autocracy. Hence, no system is
good or bad. "Every system is making of people (social action)" - Weber

Civil Society

❖ Term given by Hegel, acc to him:

● It is in opposition to state
● Lays the moral foundation of society
● One of the moments of ethical life, other 2 being- family and state

❖ It’s non-state, non-market, non-kin based part of the public domain wherein
individuals voluntarily come to create institutions/organisations
❖ Gramsci revived the term post WW2 to portray civil society as a special nucleus
of independent political activity, a crucial sphere of struggle against tyranny

❖ Main criterion for inclusion in CS:

● Organisation shouldn’t be state-controlled
● Should not be purely profit-making commercial entity

❖ Characteristics of CS:
 ● Realm of organised social life- open, voluntary, self-generating,
autonomous from state, bounded by shared rules/legal order
● Concerned with public ends, not private
● Related to state somehow, neither controls it nor controlled by it
● Encompasses pluralism and diversity

❖ India:
● B S Baviskar Mukherji- CS org gained momentum in 1980s (state’s
withdrawal from public welfare, decline of developmentalism,
post-developmental neo-liberal pol economy’s emergence)
● Another reason for rise- loss of public faith in state due to corruption,
crating a void- filled by CS
● Partho Chatterjee and Sudipta Kaviraj- Western concept of CS can’t be
applied to India as state in India not as extensive as on West
● Diverse range of issues taken up by Indian CS
● It changes social structures and institutions. Example: RTI - it converted
the basic pattern of working of institutions

CS & Democracy
❖ Cs- bastion of culture against the state, law & capitalism, existence of a CS
depends on nature of society’s relationship with the state
Locke- the CS was born to secure the rights which were already available in the
state of nature
❖ De Tocqueville- reasons for existence of D in America and absence of it in
France in terms of presence/absence of CS
❖ D and CS inseparably related to each other, Robert Putnam calls civil society
the school of democracy.
❖ McKean - CS promotes mass participation, so it is an invisible government.
Legislature behind legislature. It thus promotes democracy.

❖ Larry Diamond in his article, says that civil society plays

a significant role in building and consolidating democracy. In his view, civil society
performs following important functions:
● To limit state power
● To empower citizens
● To inculcate and promote the development of democratic attributes
amongst the citizens
● To provide avenues for political parties and other organisations to
articulate, aggregate and represent their interest
 ● A well-founded civil society could act as a shock absorbing institution to
mitigate conflicts
● To generate public and political support for successful economic and
political reforms
● Election monitoring

❖ In an article,
Jan Aart Scholte makes a comprehensive analysis of these concepts. He
identifies six areas where civil society could advance democracy:
● Public Education activities (making the public aware by educating them
about their rights)
● Voice to Stakeholders
● Policy Inputs
● Transparency of Governance
● Public Accountability
● Legitimacy

❖ Emphasis post globalisation and liberalisation- ↑role of CSs to take the burden off
the state
❖ There has also been involvement of CS along with the state in formulating and
implementing developmental initiatives
❖ Kofi Annan - In modern society, the state is incapable of catering to all
interests. State's cooperation with civil society is a must for sustainable world
peace. Example: India has no refugee policy, the gap is filled by CS/PG.

❖ Limitations of CS:
● Lack on parameters they espouse for the society (lack of democratic
decentralisation)
● Shady fin resources
● The state funding and benefits could corrupt the volunteers of the civic
organisation
● Civil society concern for global democracy could be insensitive towards
the local culture
● It might draw away from democracy if its efforts are poorly planned and
designed or executed
● The interests pursued can be individualistic, or they can be oriented
toward religion, race, or other social groupings. In a way that might
generate pressure on government and further lead to societal divisions on
parochial lines.

❖ ↑proliferation of CS globally due to ↑IT penetration

❖ Another reason for revival of interest in CS- loss of faith in state due to its
failures, seen as an alternative to state (ex- Soviet disintegration, Arab Spring,
NCPRI movement, Hong-Kong’s democracy movement)

Ideology
❖ Origin- Latin word, Eidos- means science of ideas
❖ Allows viewer to see society in a particular way
❖ Basic driver of human actions- good or bad
❖ Provides justification for the actions of individuals even when they are
unjustifiable (ex- actions of German Nazis)

❖ In the realm of political theory, the term ‘Ideology’ is applied in 2 contexts:

● Ideology as a set of ideas:
★ In this sense, ideology is a matter of faith, it has no
scientific basis. Adherents of an ideology think that
its validity need not be subjected to verification.
Different groups may adhere to different ideologies
and hence differences among them are inevitable.

★ When an ideology is used to defend an existing system or to

advocate a limited or radical change in that system, it becomes a
part of politics. A political ideology may lend legitimacy to the
ruling class or it may involve an urge for revolution. An ideology is
action oriented. It presents a cause before its adherents and
induces them to fight for that cause, and to make sacrifices for its
realisation. For example: Nationalism, Communalism

● Ideology as 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.

❖ Marx:
● Distinguishes b/w true and false ideological consciousness
● Considers it central to proletarian revolution
● I do not function in vacuum, rather, through agents whose actions are
affected by the ideologies and they affect the thoughts of the proletariat

● 3 interrelated ideas central to Marx’s conceptualisation of Ideologies:

★ Represent the interests of the ruling class
★ Constitute an inverted reality
★ Have an independent existence that is coercive of people

❖ Karl Mannheim in ‘Ideology and Utopia’, rejects Marx’s theory of ideology on 3

grounds:
● Style of thought (consciousness) of any group is only indirectly related to
its interests. There is no direct correlation between its consciousness and
its economic interests
● All thought (consciousness) is shaped by its social background, hence
Marxism itself is the ideology of a class
● Apart from classes, other social groups, like different generations, also
have a significant influence upon consciousness
He held that the false consciousness may be manifested in two forms
- ideology and utopia. Ideology represents the tendency of
conservation. It relies on false consciousness to muster support for the
maintenance of the status quo. One the other hand, utopia represents the
 impetus to change. It relies on false consciousness by projecting
unrealizable principles to muster support for the forces of change.
A ruling class makes use of ideology, the opposition may project a utopia.
Mannheim declared that the Marxist vision of a classless society was
nothing but a utopia. Hence it also uses false consciousness

❖ Marxist, Althusser:
● Hegemonic ideology- that which is imposed by the ruling class
● Essential for social change
● Ideological state apparatus; institutions an rituals in which an individual
participates produces ideas in his mind to which he submits
Though institutions (state, NGOs) are outside the realm of State, but they
promote values promulgated by the State leading to reproduction of RoP
which capitalist-controlled state wants
❖ Lenin argued that it was a neutral concept which refers to the political
consciousness of different classes, including the proletarian class. Proletariats
also need an ideology - the ideology of scientific socialism for their guidance, lest
they are overpowered by the bourgeois ideology.

❖ Functionalism viewed as ideology of ruling class

❖ Postmodernists- multiple ideologies exist in society
❖ Karl Popper, in ‘Open Society and its Enemies’- every ideology is totalitarian
as it’s blinded by ideological bias, indifferent to plural viewpoints; antithetical to
objectivity
❖ Hannah Arendt defined totalitarianism as a system of total domination
characterized by ideology and terror.
❖ Nigel Harris- our reality is next man’s ideology and vice versa
❖ Feminist sociologists- gender discrimination result of patriarchal ideology
❖ Brahmanical ideology led to suffering of depressed classes since historical times
in India, Amartya Sen- society with a pluralistic and inclusive ideology should
exist, guiding the public discourse

❖ End of Ideology
In the mid-1950s and in 1960s, in western liberal democratic countries, it was
declared that the age of ideology had come to an end. It was viewed as a tool of
totalitarianism which had no place in open societies. It was also believed that at
the advanced stage of industrial development, a country’s social- economic
organisation is determined by the level of its development, and not by its political
ideology. Thus, capitalist and communist countries were bound to evolve similar
characteristics at the advanced stage of their industrial development, irrespective
of their ideological differences.
Proponents:
● Daniel Bell sees an increasing dominance of technical elites in the
post-industrial societies, and this change in direction is not affected by
any political ideology
● Lipset observed that in the Western democracies the differences
between the Left and the Right are no longer profound.
● Rostow asserted that the adoption of different political ideologies played
no role in determining the course of economic development in different
 countries. He built a unidimensional model of economic growth which was
applicable to all countries irrespective of their political ideologies.
Critique:
● Richard Titmuss observed that the champions of the ‘end of ideology’
thesis overlook the problems of monopolistic concentration of economic
power, social disorganisation and cultural deprivation within the capitalist
system
● Samuel P. Huntington talks of clash of cultures when the Western model
of development was implemented in African and Asian countries. He thus
advocates the presence of ideology.
● C. Wright Mills dubbed them as the advocates of status quo

In actual practice, different ideologies will continue to exist as the

vehicles of value systems preferred by different groups. They will
be used for motivating people to achieve the goals cherished by
their upholders. They may also be used by some groups to
convince others regarding their rightful claims.

Way forward:

Ideologies could serve as meeting ground for like-minded people,

instead of confining themselves to their tribe, caste, religion,
region, etc. They may reflect changing social consciousness on
crucial issues. Some ideologies have given rise to strong social
movements for the emancipation of various oppressed sections.
Some ideologies manifest a deep concern with the future of
humanity.

Collective Action

❖ Collective action itself can simply be defined as people acting together in pursuit
of interests they share - for example, gathering to demonstrate in support of their
cause. Some of these people may be intensely involved, others may lend more
passive or irregular support.

❖ Typical models of collective action and protest vary with historical and cultural
circumstances. In today’s society for example, most people are familiar with
forms of demonstration such as mass marches, large assemblies and street riots,
whether or not they have participated in such activities. Other types of collective
protest, however, have become less common or have disappeared altogether in
most modern societies (such as fights between villages, machine breaking or
lynching). Protesters can also build on examples taken from other countries; for
instance, guerrilla movements proliferated in various parts of the world once
disaffected groups learned how successful guerrilla actions can be against
regular armies.

❖ Herbert Blumer uses the term collective action to refer to

social processes and events which do not reflect existing
social structure (laws, conventions, and institutions), but
which emerge in a "spontaneous" way.
 His classification of 4 types of collective action:

● The Crowd- can be compact or diffused. Neil

Smelser, John Lofland- 3 forms of emotions with
crowd:
★ Panic- expression of fear
★ Craze- expression of joy
★ Hostile outburst- expression of anger

● The Public- crowd formed on basis of single

emotion, public formed on a single issue so it can be
classified into as many forms depending on no of
issues

● The Mass- not defined by form of interaction but by

efforts of those using a particular mass media to
address an audience

● The Social Movement- They are large, sometimes

informal, groupings of individuals or organisations
which focus on specific political or social issues. In
other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social
change. Social movements are not eternal. They
have a life cycle - they are created, they grow, they
achieve successes or failures and eventually, they
dissolve and cease to exist. Classified into 2:
★ Active- tries to change society (Jan Lokpal)
★ Expressive- tries to change its own members
(Transcendental Movement of Mahesh Yogi)

❖ In Socio, it’s treated differently from individual action, can be classified in terms of
(DISCOO):
● Duration
● Ideology
● Structure
● Consequences
● Objective
● Organisation
Protest

❖ It’s a social process of opposition against any person, group or even a wider
society
❖ May occur at individual or collective level; may involve action or inaction as its
tool
❖ Opposition is central to it whereas purpose is central in agitation
 ❖ It presupposes a prior event (reaction to an event already occurred), agitation can
also be a future course (seen as desirable or undesirable)- that’s the difference
b/w both
❖ Protest seeks to reform rather than replace the existing structure. It is an
organised, conscious and collective attempt to bring or to resist social change
through non-institutional means. Over a period of time, if protests do not yield
results, they can either disappear or evolve into a social movement.
❖ Has various modes (candle lights, black cloth demonstrations, poetry, vandalism
etc.)
❖ Gandhian methods- peaceful; revolutionaries, Jihadis, Naxalites, separatists-
violent means
❖ In democratic societies, protests acceptable due to freedom of expression
❖ Also depends on factors like- competition for scarce resources, autocratic
behaviour, discrimination on various grounds
❖ Difft from social movements (SM) which are oriented towards change. Protests
can be used as a tool for furtherance of its objectives
❖ Can be institutionalised and become a SM (ex- early protest against sati, WR)
Agitation

❖ A social process of intense activity undertaken by an individual/group to fulfil a

purpose
❖ Purpose is central to it
❖ Dissatisfaction central to it, dissent to protest
❖ Modes- raasta/rail roko, strikes, rioting etc.
❖ Can be either organised or unorganised
❖ Frequency of occurrence contingent upon society’s structure, culture, political
system
❖ Can be due to actual/relative deprivation of agitator or their affiliate groups
❖ May also aim to acquire power
❖ Spontaneous, whereas SM- organised and sustained
❖ Can be institutionalised and become a SM (ex- early protest against sati, WR)

Ghanshyam Shah’s idea of agitation and protest:

● Both of them are interrelated and mutually exclusive

● Visible at manifest and latent levels.

Manifest- Verbal comments, expression of anger, disruptive

activities, sometimes rioting.

Latent-Inaction, inefficient behaviour, distress, tension,

disillusionment, alienation

● Common interests + collective action = Protests/agitation

● He gave testing criteria of Protest or Agitation-

“Compulsive Demand” in Agitation. Ex- Salt Satyagraha, Anna

Hazare’s Fast unto Death

Social Movements
❖ A sustained collective action to bring or resist a social change outside the sphere
of established institutions
❖ Has a leadership and a structure defining relations among members, making
and carrying out decisions
❖ Charles Tilly, in ‘Social Movements’- a major vehicle for ordinary people’s
participation in public politics
❖ Life cycle of a SM by Blumer, Mauss & Tilly(5 steps):
1. Emergence- there are various theories describing causes of emergence
2. Coalesce- sense of coherence developed in membership, goals, ideals
3. Bureaucratisation- establishment os set of rules and procedures
(Brahmo Samaj),
4. various paths can be taken from here on:
● Success
● Failure
● Cooptation
● Repression
● Mainstreaming

5. Decline- not eternal entities

(refer diagram on Pg.200- NS)

❖ Theories about origin of SM:

● Social Unrest Theory-
★ Associated with Chicago School
★ Herbert Blumer (interactivist perspective)- collective attempts to
change social order; classified into:
➔ active/outwardly directed- transform society
➔ expressive/inwardly directed- change people who’re
involved
★ Critique-
➔ No account for rational decisions and strategies given
➔ Descriptive account given (no attention to explanations
that were able to connect SM activity to changes in the
social structure)

● Relative Deprivation Theory-

★ SM starts as people are unhappy about certain things (ex- Babbar
Khalsa)
★ Critique-
➔ RD- maybe a necessary condition for CA but not a
sufficient one
➔ Major section of people always feels relatively deprived
but it doesn’t lead to action always

● Structural Strain Theory-

★ A structural-functionalist perspective of Neil Smelser
★ SM arising due to structural strain b/w values and structural
means
★ When the prevailing value system & normative structure do not
meet people’s aspirations, society faces strain
★ New value system is sought to replace the old- leading to
conflicts/tension
★ Smelser saw SM as side-effects of social change
★ Multi-causal theory given by him
★ SM emerges in stages and every stage adds value to the
emerging one

★ He named 6 stages in the emergence of

SM:
1. Structural Conduciveness-
Structural context has to be
conducive to movement
formation. For ex- in
authoritarian societies there is
very little scope for gathering
of people in large groups or
legal demonstrations against
things they oppose.
2. Structural Strain- There
needs to be a strain between
the expectations of people
and social reality.
3. Generalised Beliefs- It is
necessary for generalised
beliefs about the causes of
strain to develop and spread
in order to convince people of
the need to join or form a
social movement.
4. Precipitating factor- These
are events that act as sparks
to ignite the flame of protest
action (Ex- removal of Rosa
Parks from a racially
segregated bus in USA in
1955 which triggered protests
and became a key event in
the black civil rights
movement).
5. Mobilisation for action- The
next value- added element is
effective communication via
the formation of an active
social network which allows
activists to perform some of
the functions necessary for
successful protest and
organisation-building; writing
and distribution of pamphlets.
These activities require high
level networking (made
 possible in today’s time by the
internet).
6. Failure of social control- The final causal factor
is the response of the forces of social control. The
response of the authorities can be crucial in
closing down an emergent social movement or
creating opportunities for it to develop. Sometimes
an overreaction by authorities can encourage
others to support the movement
★ Critique-
➔ Assumption- SM started for irrational reasons
➔ SM seen as unusual/ marginal phenomena

● Resource Mobilisation Theory-

★ Given by Tilly in reaction to social unrest theories (unrest always
there in society), also fills gap of relative deprivation theory
★ Resources (leadership, organisational capacity, communication
facilities) necessary to wage a movement and sustain it
★ Critique-
➔ SM not limited by resources, it can always create new
ones
➔ Resources not a constraint as shown by poor people’s
movements
➔ Visualises SM as operating within a SM industry wherein
it's competing for scarce resources

● Revitalisation Theory-
★ Given by Wallace
★ SM apart from expressing dissatisfaction may also offer a +ve
alternative to the system (+ve movements)
★ May revitalise existing system undergoing structural strain

● Theory of Historicity-
★ Given by Allan Touraine
★ Cause of SM rooted in historicity- of place, people from where it
started
★ Also supported by T K Oommen

● Status Inconsistency Theory-

★ Broom and Lenski- objective discrepancy b/w people’s ranking
and status dimension- generates subjective tension in society

❖ Turner and Killian- classify SM on basis of orientation:

● Value orientation
● Power orientation
● Participation orientation

❖ David Aberle classified SM on the basis of nature of change:

● Redemptive
 ● Reformist
● Revolutionary
● Alternate
(refer diagram on Pg. 202- NS)
❖ Social media has changed way of mobilisation for a SM

❖ Leadership in a SM:
● Leaders- clarify issues and shape movement, provide guidance and
direction to it
● Prevent SM from becoming a desperate, unruly collectivity; movement
might degenerate into a mob without leadership
● Importance of L - doesn’t mean it’s all pervading (members have no say,
manipulated by leaders); leaders expected to reflect views of the people
● Most impt aspect of L- articulates participant’s views
● Acts as spokesperson of SM and negotiates on behalf of participants
● 2 way process:
★ Leader leads as per his understanding of issues
★ Leader incorporates views of participants and articulates them in
process (movement degenerates if leader only imposes his views)

❖ Ideology and SM:

● Makes people understand and justify implications of their actions
● Provides broad frame of action and collective mobilisation
● Indicates the goals, means & forms of practical activities of social groups
& of individuals
● M S A Rao- it’s one of the 3 most crucial aspects of SM; other 2-
collective mobilisation and orientation for change
● For the same end, difft means (ideologies) may be used (ex- Bhoodan
and Naxalism)
● Also helps to sustain the movement

❖ According to Touraine, social movements have three important functions:

● Mediation - Help to relate the individual to the larger
society. Give each person a chance to participate, to
express his ideas and to play a role in the process of
social change.
● Pressure - Social movements stimulate the formation
of organised groups that work systematically to see
that their plans and policies are implemented.
● Clarification of collective consciousness - Social movements generate
and develop ideas which spread throughout society. As a result, group
consciousness arises and grows.

❖ Old and New SM

1. Old-
● Goal- reorganisation of power relations
● Functioned within framework of political parties (INC- INStruggle,
CPC- Chinese revolution); role of pol ideology was central
● Focus- eco, pol, military security (Habermas)
 2. New-
● Goal- quality-of-life issues (Habermas)
● NSM theorist, Frank Parkin- key actors- new middle class
(artists, youth, middle-income groups)
● Focus not on issues of materialistic qualities (eco well-being) but
issues related to HRs & other liberal ideals (ex- gay rights)
● Instead of pushing for specific changes in public policy,
emphasise social changes in identity, lifestyle & culture.
● Not function like PGs, generally have quite broad agendas
● Employ new organisational forms and means of mobilisation
● Primarily social & cultural, only secondarily, if any, political. Don’t
seek state power but work @ cultural level for social change
● Informal, loosely organised social network of supporters (Paul
Byrne- are relatively disorganised/ polycephalous)
● Methodologies also difft- political lobbying to sit-ins
● Aim to capture moral high ground and extensively use mass
media
● Critique- many have features of old, many have institutionalised
themselves (Greenpeace, PETA etc.)
New SM also have elements of old, both not in watertight
compartments, Gail Omvedt- social inequality concerns and
unequal distribution of resources- still impt elements in these SMs

(Globalisation and SM- Pg. 204, NS)

❖ Millenarian Movement
● Generally religious, originate during a turmoil and rapid change when
there is disruption of traditional norms
● Also found in urban areas expanding rapidly, where traditional norms are
undermined.
● Promise redemption or sudden transformation of the world
● Ideology- from scriptures, cultic beliefs which hail arrival of a saviour (ex-
Christinaity, Hindu mythology, Islamic support for Mahdi in Sudan- 1880)
● Adherents organise themselves to prepare for prophetic changes
● Prophesise merger of supernatural world with that of humans- in a new
order free from suffering, ill, sin & human imperfections.
● Common among deprived ones
● David Aberle- A sense of blockage, of the insufficiency of ordinary action
is the source of more supernaturally based millenarian movts
Ex- Ghost dance religion of Tetons of Sioux, Cargo Cult, Birsa Munda
movement in India
● Marxian view of Engels- such movements indicate awakening of
proletarian consciousness and their attempt to change unjust world order

Revolution
❖ Fundamental change in political power or organisational structures taking place in
a short span of time
❖ Type of SM with radical overtones & far reaching outcomes
❖ Term came into being in 1688 in England- The Glorious Revolution
 ❖ James S Jasper- Rev- is a SM that seeks, as min, to overthrow the govt or the
state
❖ Broadly, means radical change & used in socio contexts ( GR, KR, SR- more in
metaphorical sense), strictly- context is purely political

❖ Charles Tilly, in ‘European Revolutions’- it’s difft. from other similar sounding
terms (rebellion, mutiny, uprising etc.) as all of these don’t have a lasting impact
❖ Rev- fundamental change in society’s structure, others- attempts at such a
change
❖ Neil Smelser- it takes place when equilibrium in the society is disturbed
❖ Theda Skocpol- expanded beyond field of pol power, she and scholars like
Barrington Moore- included areas like agrarian and other forms of social
conflicts in its definition

❖ Marxists view it in either of the 2 senses:

● Struggle b/w 2 classes
● Conflict in MoP

❖ Goodwin distinguishes b/w reformist and radical revolutions on basis of degree

of change brought by each:
● Reformist- American, Mexican Revolution
● Radical- FR, Bolshevik Rev, Arab Spring

❖ Rev can also be differentiated based on the ideology. For Marx- it’s end to CS, for
Aberle- it’s ¼ types of SM
❖ Same SM can be viewed differently depending on context (usually govt/ culture
of place where it’s occurring), Jack Goldstone notes-
● Human rights movement- regular in West, revolutionary in China and
some Arab countries
● Demand for equal rights for women- SM in India/ USA, revolutionary in
conservative Islamic states

❖ Conditions for rise:

● Mass discontent- popular uprisings
● Dissident pol movements- elite participation
● Strong and unifying motivation across society
● Significant pol crisis affecting state’s ability to deal with opposition
● External support
(difference between SM and Revolution- Pg. 207, NS)

CHAPTER-8 Religion and Society

❖ Durkheim- ‘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
them into a single moral community, for all those who adhere to them.’
❖ Peter Mandville and Paul James provide a definition transcending dualism of
materialism/spiritualism, sacred/secular and even includes metaphysical
elements
❖ Functions/role of religion in maintaining social order:
 1. Social change-ex Buddhism challenged orthodoxism of Brahmanism,
Weber- PESC, Tocqueville- it led to growth of democratic spirit in
America
2. Integrative force- unites those who believe in it (Durkheim)
3. Social Control- concepts of sins, virtues, hell etc guide behaviours and
so do institutions like church, temple; limit desires of individuals
4. Intellectual function- gives answers to many questions unanswered by
other bodies of knowledge (ex- process of life and death)
5. Normative role- beliefs and practices- act as moral guidelines
6. Solace and comfort- comforts through illness, death; assists individuals
cope with anxiety, stressful situations (Malinowski)
7. Stabilisation- it can change the social order or stabilise it (ex- Virashaiva
movement of Basavanna)
8. Ritual role- direct marriages, funeral practices, kinship relations etc.
9. Supplements empirical knowledge

❖ Einstein- Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

❖ Merton brought out the concept of dysfunction which can be associated with
religion as well, for instance, in a multi-religious society- causes
disorganisation/disunity
❖ Religion hinders social progress also, makes people dogmatic, can lead to
communal behaviour
❖ Doctrines like that of predestination can make an individual- powerless & fatalistic

Sociological Theories of Religion

❖ Religion considered a social phenomena in socio in terms of causes and

consequences
❖ Theories of religion divisible into categories like- of origin, of evolution (derive
understanding from study of primitive societies, Comte was early proponent of
this theory and gave foll stages- theological, metaphysical and scientific in
evolution of human societies), of working of religion
❖ Classical theorists- polytheism-religion of primitives; monotheism- complex
societies
❖ Classical/evolutionary theories of origin of religion groupable into foll
categories-
1. Intellectual Theories- earliest theories based on primitive logic, of
following types:
● The Ghost Theory/ Dreams Theory:
★ Given by Spencer in ‘Principles of Sociology’
★ Rational primitives faced questions regarding life and
death and dreams and awaken states
★ For primitives- this duality of existence thought is driven
from dreams which are regarded as real life experiences
by primitives
★ Dream-self moves at night, shadow-self acts by day- this
notion of duality reinforced by people’s experience of
temporary loss of sensibilities
★ Death- longer period of insensibility
★ Idea also applicable to plants, animals, material objects
 ★ Spencer- dead person appearing in dreams signifies
temporary afterlife, conception of supernatural being-
ghost comes up
★ Idea of ghosts (ghosts of ancestors)→idea of Gods
★ Root of every religion- ancestor worship (conclusion)
★ Primitive religion→polytheism→monotheism

● Animistic Theory of Tylor:

★ Animism- beliefs in spirits/souls; form of religion in which
man finds spirit in every object surrounding him
★ Edward B Tylor emphasised on idea of soul in ‘Primitive
Culture’
★ Soul differentiates living and dead, leaves temporarily
during dream and permanently after death
★ Soul in all creatures, even inanimate objects
★ Soul exists independently of physical home- gives idea of
belief in spiritual beings→Gods
★ Religion in form of animism- to satisfy man’s intellectual
nature- to meet need or make sense of death/
dreams/vision
★ Evolutionary perspective- difft religious practices
prevailed in difft stages of evolution of society; Animism-
H&G society, monotheistic- modern complex societies

2. Psychological Theories/Emotional Theories- based on a mental state

(fear, anxiety, emotional stress)

● Emotional Stress Theory:

★ Proponent- Malinowski, developed thesis by studying
small, illiterate society- Trobriand Island off the coast of
Guinea
★ Like Durkehim, saw it as reinforcing social
norms/promoting solidarity but not sees R as a symbol of
society
★ Religion concerned with specific areas of life- stress &
anxiety that disrupt social life;such situations produced by
crisis (birth, puberty, marriage, death)
★ In all societies, these life crises surrounded with religious
rituals (give funeral example)
★ Events not fully controllable/predictable by man causing
anxiety (fishing ex of Trobriand islanders) so they make
rituals which help in reducing anxiety, give confidence and
feeling of control
★ Group unites to deal with stressful situation- strengthens
the group’s unity hence, religion promotes social solidarity
★ Critique- function performed by religion in a particular
situation has been generalised as its feature

● Naturism/ Nature Myth Theory:

★ Developed by Max Mueller
 ★ Belief- forces of nature have supernatural powers
★ Man sees forces with awe, fear, respect and like emotions
★ Grand natural objects- feeling of infinite
★ With time, symbolic representations attain independent
identity from what they represent
★ attributes/symbols personified as deities (Indra devta etc)
★ MM- Human beings and nature stand in a relationship of
awe, wonderment, terror etc.
★ Similar explanations given by James Frazer- primitive
man struggled with nature, chanting and magic rituals
helped him gain control of nature considered magical by
him

Critique of Classical theories:

● Malinowski doesn’t agree with Tylor’s views- primitive
man occupied with fishing, gardening and doesn’t spend
time over dreams and visions; magic and religion originate
under emotional stress used by man to overcome
practical difficulties in daily life
● Spencer and Tylor criticised for projecting their own ideas
on soul on primitive man’s mind who wasn’t studied in his
natural habitat
● Instead of religion and its beliefs, primitives more inclined
towards magic and superstition (Frazer)
● Andrew Lang- many simplest societies- monotheistic
(Tylor said complex ones are)
● Earlier theories based on psycho and intellectual ideas.
Later ones (Marx, Weber, Durkehim)- new perspective on
origin and function of religion

❖ Classical theorists- saw religion as response to ‘needs of man’, functionalists-

‘needs of society’, later theoretical strands:

1. Parson’s Evolutionary Structural Functionalist Theory of Religion-

● Religion- provides guidelines in form of norms, beliefs, values etc.
for social action (ex- 10 Commandments in Christianity)
● Addresses certain societal problems- unforeseeable events (ex-
premature death) and uncertainty (skills invested in endeavours
but unknown factors threaten outcome’s success)
● Religion- adjustment mechanism to such events, means to
restore normal life pattern
● Calms down anxiety/stress threatening normal course of life
● Provides answers, makes suffering meaningful (social life full of
contradictions, religion makes sense of all experiences)
● Critique-
★ Ignores instances where it becomes disruptive
★ Lil consideration to hostilities b/w various sects in difft
religions
(Also give Durkheim’s views on religion under
functionalist perspective)
 2. Marxist view of religion-
● Viewed from a conflict perspective
● Religion- form of mystification, distortion of real relationships b/w
people and inanimate objects
● Religion- opium of masses that numbs sufferings of people
resulting from class exploitation
● Stupefies its adherents instead of bringing them true happiness
and fulfilment
● Men made to believe- power lies in supernatural and not in them
● Religion controls man’s destiny, this is shown when actually it’s
man-made (it’s a form of alienation)
● Doesn’t exist in a communist society as social conditions
producing it disappear
● Quote Lenin
● Dulls pain of oppression (study the ways of doing this) by
promising paradise in afterlife
● Justifies positioning of man in a strata (Karma theory justifies
caste rigidities in Hinduism)
● poverty/misfortune- God’s will and punishment for sins, making
poverty bearable
● Acts as mechanism of social control (maintaining existing
exploitative system and reinforcing class relationships)
● Produces a false class consciousness, diverts people from real
sources of oppression thereby helping ruling class to maintain
their power
● Ruling class follows religion to justify its actions and position
(collusion b/w feudal lords and Church in feudal England)

● Evidence to support Marxist theory:

★ Caste system of India justified by traditional Hindu beliefs
★ In mediaeval Europe- kings & queens ruled by divine right
★ Egyptian pharaohs combined god + king in same person
★ In early IR days, employers used religion to control
masses and encouraged them to be sober and work hard

● Critique:
★ Existence of religion where it’s not oppressive of a
particular class- not explained
★ Despite strict measures by socialist states (like erstwhile
USSR), religion did not die out as Marx predicted;
religious activity resumed with end of communism

Types of Religious Practices

❖ Animism
● Belief in anima or spirits
● One of the most primitive ideas that gave birth to religion
● Example of Teton Sioux of America, Nuers of S. Sudan by Evans
Pritchard
 ● Also called Ancestor Worship theory for following reasons:
★ Man faced challenges in H&G society
★ Belief- his happiness depended on happiness of dead
relatives/ancestors
★ Pitra and Shraadh concept amongst Hindus who make rituals to
placate souls of ancestors and demand peace, happiness from
them

● First sociologist to elaborate this concept- Edward B Tylor in ‘Primitive

Culture’:
★ Any spiritual phenomena (souls, divinities etc.) animated and
interpreted by man- explain the animism stage
★ Idea of spirit to man came from his dreams where he encountered
his double- more dynamic & elastic than his own self; despite
resembling his body, it’s superior quality wise than body
★ Man generalised that every embodiment (subjected to birth,
growth and decay) is associated with spirit
★ Hence trees, river, mountains became embodiments with souls
★ Animism came into being with man’s worship of these
★ Religion, in form of animism, originated to satisfy man’s
intellectual nature to meet his needs of making sense of
death, dreams and vision
★ Criticism:
➔ Post-modernists- not only primitives but all societies
animate their social world; reject the dichotomy b/w
natural/physical world and humans
➔ Nurit Bird-David- classical sociologists have projected
their mental state on primitives
➔ Malinowski’s criticism

❖ Monism
● Belief in a single God, religious idea
● Coined by Christian Wolff
● Preached by philosophers like- Thales, Plotinus and Adi Shankara
● Islam is a monistic religion
● Advaita philosophy of Hinduism advocates this- God and disciple are one
and the same being
● Sufi saints also preached it
● Tylor- monotheistic religion- hallmark of modern societies and pluralism-
primitive societies

❖ Pantheism
● A western religious ideology- reality identical with divinity, everything
comprises of an all-encompassing god
● Popularised in 17th C by Baruch Spinoza, through his work- Ethics
wherein he opposed the mind-body dualism of Descartes
● Present in eastern religions also, like- Hinduism, Buddhism etc.
● Church- considered this ideology as heretic
● Gained momentum in 19th C and had noted followers- Wordsworth,
Ralph Waldo Emerson and Thoreau, Einstein
❖ Pluralism
● Pluralistic religious practices- accommodative of different viewpoints,
beliefs etc.
● In simplest terms, means respecting the other as other & is counter to
exclusivism
● Different from syncretism- mixing of difft. religious beliefs into a single
output
● It’s existence depends on the existence of freedom of religion, fertile
ideas and mutual tolerance etc. (ex- Hinduism, Christianity)
● Freedom of religion- difft religions of a region possess the same rights of
worship & public expression
Ex- Hinduism & Christianity
● Steve Bruce- it results from a variety of sources and has undermined the
communal basis of religious orthodoxy as well; it’s a sign of growing
secularisation (his views contested by recent conflicts in religious
pluralistic societies in Syria and Europe)
● It’s functional to the society- reminds ind that religion is a matter of
choice, hence, a pvt matter
● Peter Berger- pluralistic beliefs growing with modernisation and
secularisation as they undermine one absolute truth
● Bryan Wilson- with it, religious values become personal and no longer
remain community’s; evidence of secularisation- multiplicity of
denominations
● It has existed in India since the emergence of Buddhism (500 BCE) and
widened in course of several Mulsim settlements; Zoroastrianism est in
India (8th C), Christianity arrived long before the colonialists (ancient
India only, Gondophernes)
(Semitic tradition of religion- box, Pg. 217- NS)

❖ Sects and Cults

● (New Religious Movements- box, Pg. 218- NS)
● Church-sect typology of Weber and Troeltsch

● Theoretical explanations for the rise of sects and cults:

★ Result of secularisation and liberalisation of society
★ spiritual solace in smaller, less impersonal religious movements
★ Bryan Wilson- they are a result of social change; Andrew
Dawson- result of change due to rapid and large scale
urbanisation
★ Such movements appeal to the alienated and marginalised

● Cult-
★ Small scale religious activities
★ Beliefs difft. from dominant religion, focusing on individual
experience
★ Often based on charismatic leadership
★ Never challenges mainstream religion directly
★ Tolerant of other beliefs, their own beliefs- vague
★ Loosely organised, lil regulations, members (more specifically,
customers) free to affiliate to other religions
 ★ Origin (acc to some thinkers)- social evils, discontentment,
change in society
★ Voluntary organisation with open membership; but highly
secretive when exclusive
★ Focuses on one doctrine/ one God with certain definite
characteristics
★ Flourishes in metropolitans with culturally heterogeneous
populations feeling impact of rapid social change

★ Olridge- they’re present in modern society because-

➔ Provide relief in this life
➔ Solution to mundane problems
➔ Believers and devotees face each other (Gurus-
middlemen)

★ Peter Berger’s classification:

➔ Revivalists- forgotten past glorified
➔ Adventists- new means to joy prescribed
➔ Orientalists- followers of Oriental religions

★ Bruce- in secular world- people holding less onto commitments-

so cults have become popular (less sacrifices and commitment
reqd than churches & sects), that’s why more tolerable

★ Stark and Bainbridge- they are new religions or atleast new to a

particular society (resulting from cultural importation, ex-
Eastern religions in USA); their classification of cults:
1. Audience cults- least organised, little face-to-face
interaction, contacts maintained through mass media/
occasional conference; ex- astrology
2. Client cults- more organised, personalised services to
followers (ex- Scientology)
3. Cult movements- more followers with attempt to satisfy
all religious needs of theirs, membership of other faith
prohibited, vary in power- some require lil attendance at
meetings while others shape whole life of a person); many
client cults turn to client movements for their dedicated
followers (practitioners of TM- who take to Siddhi)

● Sects-
★ Offshoots of existing religions as a result of schisms/ divisions
within the religion

★ Characteristics as per Troeltsch:

➔ Smaller and strongly integrated
➔ Connected with lower class or at least those who’re
opposed to State and Society
➔ Reject values of the world
 ➔ Members may be expected to withdraw from life outside
the sect, expected to be deeply committed to beliefs of
sect
➔ Claim to possess monopoly over religious truth
➔ Not organised through a hierarchy of paid officials unlike
Church
★ More organised form of religion than cults, institutionalisation of
social roles starts in this social organisation
★ Urge for change and reinterpretation- @ their heart
★ Breakaway from orthodoxy of established religions
★ Intolerant towards other religious groups
★ Desire to dissociate from existing social order
★ Bryan Wilson- sects arise during rapid social change (ex- rise of
Methodism)
★ Indian examples- Mutts, Sanghs, Panths
★ Indicator of nature of society, more sects- relatively open society
Peter Berger- Sect is in tension with the larger society & is closed
against it
★ Weber- likely to arise in groups marginal in society (on account of
prestige/economic reward) (called ‘theodicy of disprivilege’),
such sects promised honour
Critique- Bryan Wilson- many reasons could lead to
marginalisation leading to development of sects
★ Stark and Bainbridge- sects- possible response to relative
deprivation

(Differences between Sects and Cults- Pg. 220- NS)

❖ Denomination
● Howard Becker- it’s a cooled down sect that has become an
institutionalised body instead of an active protest group
● It’s a religious sect which has lost its reformist, revivalist dynamism &
became an institutionalised body commanding a large following
● Closer to the established religion (ex- Church) which is also acceptable of
it
● When sect becomes respectable in eyes of middle class and religious
vigour is relaxed- denomination is formed
● Alan Aldridge- religious organisation seen respectable in some context
(denomination), less acceptable in others (sect)
● Features:
★ No universal appeal like a Church
★ Does not identify with State unlike Church
★ Membership from all levels of society
★ Don't claim monopoly over religious truth (defining feature acc to
Steve Bruce), tolerant and cooperative with other organisations
★ Formed when binding chord of fellowship and love of religious
service (distinguishing trait of cult)- weakened
★ Accepts norms and values of larger society with minor restrictions
on members (ex- Methodists discouraged from drinking,
gambling)
 ★ Develops a bureaucratic organisation, similar to Church

Institutional religion- final stage in evolution of cults→sects-denomination;

features:
● Formal organisation with a hierarchy of officials
● No allegiance of individuals required, members already born into it
● Accepts societal norms/values, regards itself as guardian of social order
● Jealously guards its monopoly on religious truth

❖ Roy Wallis’s classification of religious organisations in terms of

respectability/deviance and monopoly over religious truth/coexistence with other
religious organisations- Fig. 8.1, Pg. 221- NS
Critique- Church no longer holds religious sway as religious pluralism is
undermining its position in most modern societies
❖ India-
● A M Shah- socio research on religion in India has focused on
ideas/symbols rather than on social organisation of religion
● Sects in India- becoming more articulate, drawing diverse membership
from all sections, wakening rigid caste structure (if not diluting it)
● New program of action of Indian sects and cultic figures- building schools,
hospitals whereas some embroiled in controversies (ex- Asaram Bapu,
Dera Sacha Sauda)

Religion in Modern Society

❖ Religion and Science
● Classical evolutionary sociologists see evolution in a series of religion,
magic and science
● Comte- society moves from theological stage to Positivist stage (religion-
dominates traditional societies & science- modern); 3 stages of evolution
of human society (TMP)
● Tylor- science is infallible, embodies spirit of modernity

● 3 types of views:
★ Religion & science as compatible:
➔ Stephen Gould’s NOMA principle(non overlapping
magisteria)- 1 type of human need- understanding of
working of nature (magisterium of science), another
need- understanding meaning of life & basis for moral
values (covered by magisterium of religion)
➔ Religion may encourage science (Bainbridge-
monotheism may imply that universe follows a single set
of laws)
➔ Weber’s PESC- Calvinist Protestantism encouraged
development of rational thought- encouraged
development of science
➔ Bainbridge- argument of some writers- some physics
concepts closely affiliated to Asian religious/ mystical
movements)
 ★ Religion & science as incompatible:
➔ Dawkins-
➢ Science may not ans everything, but why should
religion be giving any expertise in area of
deciphering the meaning of life
➢ Rejects creation of a complex world by an
omnipotent being (intelligent design),
development of complex life-forms- result of
natural selection
➢ Contends- religion based upon faith, but faith
inadequate & harmful reason for believing in
something as there’s no evidence to back it up

★ Middle-path of Philip Hefner:

➔ Some similarities b/w both, both claim- world based upon
‘hidden forces’ that need to be understood
➔ There are always issues at the ‘obscure margin
inevitably existing between what we know and
transcendent reality that we seek to know’ , expression
of religion allows oppressed groups to participate in
construction of knowledge
➔ New scientific knowledge can be interpreted from the view
of religious beliefs in following manner:
➢ Development of complex bio structures & culture-
result of God’s creativity
➢ Theology shows- humans made by God to act as
‘co-creators’
➢ Big Bang- unique events rather than universal
laws shape universe demonstrating divine
intervention
➔ Critique- Bainbridge- he is expressing hope for peaceful
and mutual beneficial accommodation of the 2, his
arguments:
➢ Religion interprets the world from
anthropocentric view (ex- counters for centre of
universe theory, creation of earth specifically for
humans theory)
➢ Increasing tendency towards unification of
scientific knowledge- if this achieved, religion
can’t claim to fill in the gaps in knowledge
➢ Religion might not perform +ve functions in
society- creating difficulty in giving scientific
justification for maintaining it

● Differences:
Science Religion

Inquisitive and deliberative Imaginative and speculative

Believes in No such provisions

precision/measurement
 Brings to level of observable Depicts God as beyond reach of
reality humans

Promotes questioning Promotes status quo/ tradition

Based on rationality Based on belief in sacred

Promotes individual innovation, More collectively oriented

teamwork also there sometimes

SM valid universally Accepted by particular community

of believers

Pitrim Sorokin- science based on Pitrim Sorokin- religion based on

questionable thesis unquestionable faith

● Durkehim- both provide society with collective representations

● Similarities:
★ Aim to ans certain questions
★ Have manifest, latent functions and some dysfunctions also
★ Result of intellectual and emotional needs of humans
★ Prescribe qualifications for personnel
★ Cognitive, forms of human understanding

● Weber’s comparative studies- religions across world advocate values

invariably opposed to rationality, science- empirical, rationality
increases→secularism→space of religion decreases

● Darwin’s evolution theory conflicts with- God created man

● William Bainbridge- both have become fragmented so no single

relationship (multiplicity of relations)

● Tech advancements→increased people’s control over natural

world→religious explanations no longer reqd
● S&T also have limits, prayers resorted to when human ingenuity fails (ex-
prayers when medical treatment doesn’t work)
● ISRO’S Mars orbiter mission example
● Some new religions deem themselves as scientific (ex- Scientology)
● Einstein- ‘Science without religion is lame and religion without
science is blind’
● Many religious institutions making use of scientific discoveries to make
religion’s reach wider, television and internet used by religious leaders for
gaining mass appeal

❖ Secularisation and Secularism

● Classical views- 19th C belief- industrialisation and growth of scientific
knowledge would lead to it which was defined broadly as ‘process of
religious decline’; Comte’s 3 stage-evolution theory of society
 Durkheim- anticipated decline of social significance of religion as an
integrating force in a highly specialised DoL society wherein solidarity
would be provided by edu system instead of rituals
Weber- people would act less in emotional terms and more in terms of
rational pursuit of goals
Marx- religion needed to legitimise social inequality in class society, when
classless communism would replace capitalism, religion would cease to
have any social purpose
● Contemporary theories- views largely based upon analysis of nature of
modernity; main features of Steve Bruce’s theory:
★ Structural differentiation & Social differentiation- led to
separation and specialisation of major insist (Church)- no longer
central to social life
★ Individualism- people less strongly affiliated to collective
institutions, people judged less in terms of positions & more as ind
in a flexible ranking system
★ Societalisation- religion can survive in well integrated close-knit
communities with everyone following 1 religion so there’s no
question; modern states coordinated through impersonal
bureaucracies
★ Schisms- in estd religions; ↑social & cultural diversity= more
people exposed to diverse religious views undermining
pervasiveness & persuasiveness of 1 religion
★ Pluralism- with greater religious diversity, difficult for state to
suppress alternatives & allow a Church to dominate public life

★ Technology- reduces no of times people turn to religion to solve

probs and gives people greater control over natural world; even
when people turn to God when rationality can solve any issue (ex-
sickness, death) they do it as a last resort after exhausting all
scientific alternatives

● Limits to Secularisation- supporters of thesis such as Steve Bruce

don’t necessarily believe that religion will disappear, it’ll just decline in
significance

● Problems in defining secularisation- main clusters of descriptions and

explanations offered:

1. Participation in Institutional religion-

★ Extent of religion in our life→importance given by us to
religious institutions (evidenced by church’s attendance,
church membership) and they role they perform in various
events of our life (marriage, funeral)

2. Disengagement of religious institution from everyday life-

★ Edu, politics, social welfare- no longer functions of religion
 Contradicted by Parsons- structural differentiation of
institutions is a natural evolutionary process which doesn’t
make the role of religion less impt
★ David Martin- decline in power, wealth, influence &
prestige of Church
★ Compared to role played in Mediaeval Europe, in
contemporary Western society, Church has undergone
disengagement
★ In Middle Ages- there was union of Church and state,
today Church hardly represented in govt (just right of
bishops to sit in Brit HoL)
★ Jose Casanova- Europe is exception, in most countries
religion becoming more prominent in public life; there’s
just deprivatization of religion; public role of religion not
just confined to 1 society today as it has assumed a TN
character (ex- Pentecostalism)
★ Exception in Britain als- religion forced into public agenda
(Protestants vs Catholics in N. Ireland), Salman Rushdie
affair etc.

3. Structural and social differentiation-

★ Parsons- process of structural differentiation involved
in society’s evolution: various parts of social systems
specialised to perform some functions; as religious
institutions become specialised- their values & ethics
become more generalised (ex- basis for moral general
social values in American society)
★ Bruce- this is social differentiation resulting from eco
growth and development of industrial capitalism; it means
Church has lesser role to play now in non-religious
spheres (ex- Money lending etc.); today social life
dominated by logic of capitalist production; differentiation
affecting individuals as well as institutions

4. Societalisation-
★ People rarely know and mix with each other as a society
not within just local community
★ Decline of community undermines religion in 3 ways-
➔ Churches no longer focal point of communities
(ex- no large local participation in weddings,
funerals)
➔ People’s greater involvement with broader society
in which they live where they look widely for
services, less likely to turn to local priest
➔ Cultural diversity of society- people hold beliefs
with less certainty, no constant reinforcement of
one religious view

5. Increasing religious pluralism-

★ Truly religious society- monotheistic, one faith & one
Church
 ★ Durkheim- community is the Church
★ Competition among various religions- reduced power of
religion
★ Steve Bruce- religious pluralism- results from variety of
sources that undermine the communal base of religious
orthodoxy; State cannot support one religion only without
causing conflict
★ Existence of multiple religions goes against the belief-
religion is the binding force
★ Rising no of sects- indicative of dominant religious values
losing importance
★ Modernity and industrialisation- social fragmentation of
society into plurality of religious groups
★ Plurality of religions- indicate belief is a personal choice
and not part of membership of society
★ Critique- truly religious society- where beliefs and
institutions of it thrive, not necessary for everyone to
share the same religious beliefs for religion to be impt (ex-
Northern Ireland)

6. Secularisation of religious institutions-

★ Religious organisations adapting to changed conditions;
involved in medical facilities provisioning, edu,
philanthropy etc.

7. Growing individualism-
★ No more collective worship, individual path of salvation
worked out by people
★ Critique-
➔ Robert Bellah- doesn’t show importance of
religion has declined, only form of expression has
changed

8. Desacralisation-
★ No place for sacred- supernatural forces not deemed to
control the world
★ With more knowledge of physical/biological world due to
scientific development- space of sacred restricted
★ Weber- modern society characterised by rationalisation &
intellectualisation and by disenchantment of the world
★ Organisations (judiciary, trade unions etc.) guided by
rational ideologies
★ Bryan Wilson- men act less in response to religious
motivation, they assess the world in rational & empirical
terms; following factors encouraged a rational worldview:

➔ People’s involvement in rational organisations

which impose on them rational behaviour
 ➔ More knowledge of physical and social world- due
to development of physical, bio and social
sciences
➔ Development of rational ideologies
(communism) and organisations (trade unions) to
solve social probs practically
★ Peter Beger- decisive variable for secularisation- process
of rationalisation (prerequisite for any industrial society of
modern type)

(Invisible Religion- Pg. 225, NS)

● Secularism, as a progressive ideology- necessary qualification for the
end of a feudal, theological state & arrival of liberal, demo state of post-
FR
Still later, in 1851, secularism- term coined by George Jacob Holyoake
● Secularisation thesis of dichotomy b/w traditional and modernity rejected
by contemporary sociologists. No way of ascertaining the strength of
belief or secularisation.
Religious revivalism, growth of new sects, civic religion, theological
states, growth of fundamentalism/communalism indicate- modernity and
secularisation don’t go hand in hand
★ Kaufmann- church attendance has declined, no of believers has
not- called ‘belief w/o belonging’ (Davie); growth of orthodox
believers- section which produce more children (ex- Israel)
★ Luckamann’s invisible religion

Religion- not declining but channelled in other directions (ex- rise of New
Religious Movts.)
(Civic Religion or Civil Religion- Pg. 226- NS)

❖ Fundamentalism and Religious Revivalism

● Fundamentalism- movement/belief calling for return to basic texts/
fundamentals of revealed religions (believed to be pure and containing
origins values and behaviour)
● An ideology of religious/ social groups calling for adherence to literal
meaning of sermons/scriptures, doctrines & their application to all aspects
of life
● Access to meanings restricted to a privileged few giving them authority
over others (priest, clergy etc.)
● Need for fundamentalism-
★ Drastic changes in society- loss of identity/rootlessness, people
want solace- fundamentalism provides restitution of earlier better
age
● Features of fundamentalism-
★ Stress on infallibility of scripture (God’s own words)- seen as
literal historical text, God’s own words- meanings of which are
bound to be clear, unambiguous & changless
 ★ All aspects/areas of life to be governed by true, revealed religion
as embodied in sacred texts. Fundamentalists attack religion’s
separation from polity/state- disregarding secular state
★ Insistence on religious control over edu
★ Don’t believe in equality of all religions
★ Opposed to reason, rationalism, humanism and secularism
★ Reject corrupt lifestyle (Dayanand Saraswati’s critique of
traditional su[erstitious life, Mududi’s Muslim’s ignorant way of life,
Bhindrawale’s- fallen sikhs)
★ T N Madan- F Movts are of a collective character,
Often led by charismatic leaders (usually men)

● Discuss the recent trends

● Almond- fundamentalism can be understood at 3 levels:
★ Structural level- long-term contextual conditions (unemployment,
ethnic persecution, dislocation, secularisation, eco situation)
★ Contingency and chances also impt- structural factors create
situation, specific historical events determine its translation into
actual movement
★ Human choice and leadership- despite all other conditions being
there, it’ll not develop without religious leaders (ideological
catalysers) who mobilise large supporters of belief

● Factors leading to fundamentalism, acc to Bruce

★ Traditional beliefs upset by secularisation, fundamentalism is a
reaction for restoration
★ Some religions have greater potential for fundamentalist
offshoots, religions lacking a single authoritative text (provides
ideological cohesion) unlikely to develop it
★ Threat perception/ presence of common enemy transforms
cohesive feeling into tangible action; unity provided through
hostility to a common enemy
★ How belief systems controlled within a religion (ex- religious
authority with the Pope in Roman Catholicism so dissenters can’t
claim that their version of religion is truer; both Protestantism &
Islam- less centralised, authoritative knowledge democratically
available)
★ Requires potential charismatic recruiters also, members of
particular strata ( feeling threatened, dispossessed, relatively
deprived) needed. Ex- Abu Bakr Al- Baghdadi in case of IS
★ Wider pol support conducive for its thriving, ex- growth of
fundamentalist Budhhist organisations in Myanmar backed by
totalitarian military regime

● Growth of fundamentalism in the past linked to reaction to colonialism and

growth of nationalism also. Ex- Iranian revolution (1979)- fF tendencies-
reaction to US interference; Mujahideen grew as a reaction to Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan
● Shupe- result of resentment at increased marginalisation of religion,
attempt to make it central to society once again
 ● Revivalism- simply means survival of religion in any form (institutional
attendance, growth of religious institutions & organisations like- sects,
cults etc.); w/out political legitimacy and power, fundamentalism- mere
revivalism

● Levels where role of religion has been re-emphasised:

★ Increased institutional acceptance of religion
★ Increased used of religion as a medium
★ Growth of invisible/private religion
★ Growth of civil religion
● Religion has survived because of both ind & social functions that it
performs. Turner- religion is not a cognitive system, a set of dogmas
alone, it's a meaningful experience.

❖ Fundamentalism and Communalism

● Communalism- using social traditions to mobilise people generally to
satisfy some vested interests (country-basis example)
● Similarities:
★ Both attack separation of religion from state and politics
★ Oppose concept of equality of all religions
★ Advocate control over education by followers of dominant religion

● In a multi-religious society. Fundamentalists tend to be communal while

communalists not quite often fundamentalists (ex- Hindu Mahasabha,
RSS, Akali Dal, Muslim League)
● Communalist leaders need not be religious leaders
● Communalists want to communalise only their own social community,
fundamentalists- whole world, communalism needs a binary (real or
imagined) opposition to mobilise its members

● Differences:

Fundamentalism Communalism

Stress- infallibility of scriptures Strong allegiance to one’s own

group, allegiance could be based
on anything

Separate certain communities Ideological, becomes active

from mainstream during social upheaval

Aim- est normative order by Aim- to est its supremacy through

various means violence, hatred

Is a movement, led by charismatic Communalists have a mass

leaders psyche, becomes apparent only
on certain occasions, can’t be
sustained like a movement as
fundamentalism
 Want to purge community of all No reformative agenda
evils of corrupt lifestyle

Reaction and response to what Emerges when there’s a conflict of

leaders or participants consider as interest/ sense of insecurity
a crisis among both groups

Pursuit of pol power- most impt Protective of its rights & beliefs,
exclusionary in nature

● Bipin Chandra’s 3 fold- classification of communalism:

1. Liberal
2. Communal
3. Extreme

● Communalism:

Causes Consequences

Unhealthy competition for Atmosphere of unrest

opportunities

Difft perception of history Violent clashes

Events of past (partition) Loss of life, property

Insecurity in religious minorities Hindrance to social change

(opposition to 3 talaq)

Perception of threat- even by Forced migration

majority

International linkages (ex- Ghettoization and continued

Rohingyas, Uyghurs, Paki Sikhs distrust
etc.)

CHAPTER-9 Systems of Kinship

❖ Kinship system- set of persons recognised as relatives by virtue of blood

relationship (consanguinity) or by virtue of a marriage relationship (affinal or
conjugal relationship)
❖ Fictive kins- in societies having ‘mechanical solidarity’ (non- marriage &
non-blood based relationships), result of individual preferences as a result of
friendships, religious obligations etc.), in many tribal and rural societies

❖ Harry Johnson- kinship has 5 impt elements:

1. Sex- indicates sex of blood and conjugal relations- brother & sister or
husband & wife
2. Generation- nomenclature- father-son
3. Closeness & intimacy- ias in case of husband-wife
4. Blood relations- as in case of mother-child
 5. Lineage- traces kinship along generations

❖ Importance of kinship relations (perform several functions)-

● Rights & obligations decided on basis of these relations
● System of production, consumption & authority governed through this
● Lay down marriage taboos
● Important for performance of various rites

❖ Many of the above functions are diluted with eco and social changes in society-
nuclearisation of family, migration, woman empowerment etc.

Family, Household and Marriage

❖ Family-
● Early views- seen as an evolutionary process. It wasn’t a social unit
when man wasn’t a social animal , Morgan & Frazer- man lived in wild
like other animals and exhibited promiscuous behaviour , family started to
take concrete shape as social relations stabilised

● Functionalists- (quote Parsons also after this) George Peter Murdock,

in ‘Social structure’:
★ It’s a universal social institution (on the basis of his study of
families in 250 societies ranging from small H-G to large industrial
ones)
★ Variations in structure:
➔ Smallest unit- nuclear (H,W , immature offspring), units
larger than this- extended family- either V (addition of
members of 3rd generation) or H (addition of members of
the same generation); Bell & Vogel- extended family- any
grouping broader than the nuclear family which is related
by descent, marriage and adoption
➔ Murdock- nuclear family present in every society in his
sample
★ Characteristics of family as a social group acc to him:
➔ Common residence
➔ Eco co-operation
➔ Reproduction
➔ Adults of both sexes (at least 2 maintaining a socially-
approved sexual relationship)
➔ 1 or more children, produced or adopted, of sexually
cohabiting adults

● Marxists-
Friedrich Engels- the origin of the family:
★ Took a materialistic evolutionary view, combined it with Marxist
theory- as MoP changed, so did the family
★ Early stages (primitive communism)- communally owned MoP- no
rules limiting sexual relations- society, in effect, was family
 View supported by Kathleen Gough- nearest relatives to
humans- chimpanzees also lived in ‘promiscuous hordes’ which
may have been the pattern of early humans too
★ More restrictions on sexual relations were imposed- family &
marriage evolved through series of stages- polygyngy to present
stage monogamous nuclear family (emerged with private property
i.e private ownership of MoP & state instituted laws to protect
private property) - each succesive stage restricted availability of
mates to an individual
Monogamous nuclear fam- arrived with pvt property’s arrival-
emerged as effective solution for the protection of PP via
inheritance
★ Critique:
➔ Monogamous nuclear families often found in H & G bands
so forms of marriage postulated by him like promiscuous
hordes may be figments of his imagination

Eli Zaretsky- personal life & capitalism:

★ Private life separate from economy- illusion in modern capitalist
society
★ Earlier, it was a unit of production
★ work & family life separated only with development of factory
based production- wherein family was put on a pedestal as it
provided satisfactions unavailable outside the home due to
alienating nature of work- it might cushion effects of capitalism but
it perpetuates the system & cannot compensate for general
alienation produced by such society
★ It’s a prop to capitalist society- which thrives on domestic labour
of housewives to reproduce future generations of workers & has
become a unit of consumption
★ Critique:
➔ Somerville- despite giving qualifications, he exaggerates
role of family as a refuge from capitalist life; neglects
cruelty, violence, neglect w/in families
Also contends- family not separated from work (working
class women did paid work to financially support family
during early capitalism)

● Feminist perspective- feminists, like Marxists, have been critical of

family:
★ Introduced study of areas of family life- housework & domestic
violence- questioning the view that families have become
egalitarian
★ Highlighted women’s unpaid, domestic labour’s economic contri to
society
★ Viewed families as institutions having unequal power relationships
★ Some have rejected the idea of ‘family’- there are simply difft
kinds of domestic arrangements
★ Highlighted emotional support to frustrated males in a capitalist
system (Frans Ansley)
● Classical definitions no longer valid- family today not limited by 2 adults of
opposite sex (lesbian, gay) & may not perform function of reproduction,
other functions overtaken by bureaucratic organisations

● Features of family acc to McIver and Page:

★ Universality
★ Affective affinity
★ Limited size
★ Nuclear position
★ Responsibilities of members
★ Social regulation

● Functions performed by family:

★ George Murdock’s 4 universal functions (that serve to
resolve 4 major societal probs):
➔ Regulation of sexual relations (w/out which there would
be no members in society)
➔ Controlling reproduction (w/out which there would be no
members in society)
➔ Economic survival (w/out which life would cease)
➔ Socialisation of children (also termed education by him,
w/out which there would be no culture and human society
cannot function w/out it)

★ Parson’s basic & irreducible functions of family:

Viewed family as factories producing human personalities
➔ Primary socialisation of children- takes place mainly
w/in family in early childhood years, 2 basic functions
involved:
1. Internalisation of society’s culture
2. Structuring of the personality
➔ Stabilisation of adult personalities- occurs during later
years when family is less involved and other agencies
exert more influence.
Marriage- mode of stabilisation of adult personalities
Acc to him, modern families are ‘isolated nuclear
families’ (as a result of structural differentiation) evolving
with requirements of industrialization- as there’s functional
relationship b/w family & economic system of society
(more details- Pg. 243, NS & Pg. 522-523, H & H)
Critique-
➔ Over-harmonious view of family taken, typical
optimistic modernist theory divorced from reality
➔ Largely based on the American middle-class
family regarded by him as representative of
American families in general
➔ Fails to explore functional alternatives to family
➔ View of socialisation- 1 way process
 ➔ Suffers from patriarchal bias
➔ Isolated nuclear family is not the sole type of
family in a modern society

★ Ronald Fletcher, in ‘Family and Marriage in Britain’- functions

of family not decreased due to industrialisation, in fact they have
increased
➔ Decisive role has to be played by parents
➔ Increasing scope of social life- health, physical edu &
media has increased role of parents

★ Manifest functions of family:

➔ Emotional support (personality stabilisation acc to
Parsons)
➔ Physical security of the young and the old
➔ Financial security & placement
➔ Sexual gratification & regulation of sexual behaviour
➔ Early learning and imparting life skills to individuals
➔ Entertainment function
➔ Social status and identity provided by it

★ Latent functions of family:

➔ Reproduction- keeping the society alive- function of
member replacement & physical maintenance
➔ Cultural transmission during upbringing
➔ Primary socialisation of children
➔ Mechanism of social control
➔ Functions as unit of economic production

★ Dysfunctions of family:
➔ Marxists- breeds notion of conformity; David Cooper-
it’s an ideological conditioning device in an exploitative
society, denies individual freedom & hinders self-
development
➔ Edmund Leach- modern family- storehouse of stress &
tension, isolated from larger society & kin
➔ Feminists- perpetuates unpaid labour (Margaret
Benston)
➔ Legitimises violence, sexual abuse. Murray Strauss-
marriage licence is a hitting licence
➔ Norman Bell- dysfunctional for children (used as
scapegoats by parents to vent out tension)

★ Changes in functions (due to industrialisation, rise of

bureaucratic organisations, nuclearisation etc.):

➔ Social control now in hands of law and order

➔ Ronald Fletcher- secondary functions of family today
performed by bureaucratic organisations
 ➔ Young & Willmott- family has made alliance with tech-
industry needs market and a motivated workforce (both
motivated worker & desire for consumer durables given by
family)
➔ No longer plays role of placement- modern DoL- facilitates
numerous avenues of employment
➔ Old age care function t/fd to formal institutions like old age
care homes
➔ Feminism & economic functions- disregard the view
that family has turned from unit of production to that of
consumption- much of the work taking place in family is
productive but unaccounted for as it’s unpaid & done by
women
Christina Delphy & Diana Leonard- some productive
functions have been lost, others performed to a much
higher standard now
➔ The maintenance & improvement of functions- Ronald
Fletcher- Role of family has increased also despite
growth of BO- parents have to put more effort to keep
child up with modern edu, extended & intensive role in
health also, vital eco function- unit of consumption

● Structure of family can be studied either itself or in relation to other

structures (ex- migration of men for eco opportunities, work schedules of
young parents in software industry in India)

● Features of traditional family structure-

★ Size- several nuclear families grouped horizontally or vertically-
extended family (never a universal feature of traditional society,
industrialisation→nuclearisation- untrue)
★ Authority relationships- patriarchal (dominant form), Parsons-
male have ‘instrumental authority’, females- ‘emotional
authority’
★ Kinship bonds w/in family- traditional families- consanguineal
bonds> conjugal, filial bonds strong with limited interactions
(based on respect), mother-child always strong bond; advent of
love marriages in modern society- conjugal bonds stronger
★ Descent- patrilineal (common) or matrilineal, exceptions- Nairs of
Malabar & Khasis of Meghalaya- matrilineal
★ Seniority- source of authority & respect, society divided on
age-sets- age decides division of power w/in family
★ DoL- generally sex-based & patriarchal; sexual divsion primary
mode of DoL- empirically shown
★ Rule of Relations- rules regarding incest, women rearing
children, cousin marriage etc. guide kinship relations
★ Ownership patterns- traditional joint family- with adult males,
succession line- patrilineal

● Factors responsible for changes in structure & functions of family:

 1. Industrialisation- smaller, geographically mobile families;
conjugal bonds strengthened
2. Advent of love marriage- free selection of spouse- intro of
romantic element in family
3. Legal factors- status of women & children improved, separation
easier now, polygamy restrained legally, inheritance laws for
women elevating their position
4. Household shifts in family- noelocal (working couples moving to
new places of location of jobs) replacing patrilocal
5. Emergence of alternatives to family & marriage- live-ins, single
parent families, gay & lesbian marriages- emerging trends
6. Growing individualisation- individualisation & fluidity in relations-
less durable bonds
7. Educated & aware women- wome resisting compulsion/
atrocities of patriarchal families, equality of status demanded
8. Overpopulation & migration- migration due to difft factors has
altered family structures
9. Secularisation of society- religious controls weak→members
question prescribed roles→functional character of family changes
10. Role of media- growth of liberal & individual-centric ideas
11. State policy- family planning drives- altered idea of family.
State driven policies can be in the form of social campaigns-
encouraging acceptance of contraceptive-usage among married
through sensitization or coercive- like 2 child policy of China to
curb population growth that has resulted in aged population &
reversal of orders, restricting state-sponsored benefits to the 3d
child
12. Land reforms- sowed seeds of separate living

● Structural changes in family-

1. Conjugal relations & authority structure-
➔ husband-wife relation more cooperation based,
symmetrical and of companionship now
➔ conjugal bonds strengthened by nuclearisation (Parsons)
➔ Young & Willmott- 3 stage- evolution of family
➔ Goran Therborn- patriarchal power w/in fam declined
over the 20th century, events like- women’s participation
during WW1, Russian Revolution promoting
egalitarianism, feminist movements of 1970s- altered
gendel profiles & family structures
(Symmetrical form- refer Pg. 239- NS)

2. Parent- child relationship- families becoming

filliocentric
3. Parental roles- gender stereotypes hit by social & legal
reforms, both parents play emotional & instrumental role
4. Brother- sister relationship- based on fellowship,
equality
 5. Greater incidences of divorce- Duncan Fletcher-
people today expect more out of marital relations
Edmund Leach- family unable to bear emotional stress &
tensions- fragile conjugal bonds
Nick Hart- there are more opportunities to escape today
6. Authority structure changes- structures within family
altered by individualism & achievement orientation
7. Rise of traditionally non-institutionalised features-
live-ins, single parent family etc. family- no longer
classically understood institution

● Family no longer cornerstone of society- exemplified by Netherlands,

Kibbutz in Israel

Types and Forms of Family-

1. On the basis of residence
2. On the basis of authority
3. On the basis of descent or rule of inheritance
4. On the basis of marriage
5. On the basis of household size
6. On the basis of size
7. On the basis of membership type
8. The family of orientation & family of procreation
Other classifications:
● On the basis of volatility- serial monogamy of Anthony Giddens
● Family of choice- with recognition of alternative sex- orientations
● Cohabitation w/out marriage- also legally recognised by some countries

❖ Household-
● Residential & domestic unit composed of 1 or more persons living under the
same roof and eating food cooked in the same kitchen, core feature-
commensality (while that of family- emotional attachment)
● Household & family may or may not be the same for a given set of people
★ Husband- wife living separately due to occupational constraints
★ Tenant - landlord living under the same roof
★ Institutional households (dorms, hotels, hostels)
★ Houseless households (pavement dwellers)
★ Both being same notion broken down by factors like serial monogamy
(Anthony Giddens)

● Household as a concept of social analysis- becoming impt as it provides for

internal DoL- acting as a micro-eco unit (feminists- HH- den of SDoL)

● HH may undergo several changes; A M Shah, in study of Gujarat villages,-

★ HH may experience progression and/or regression with adoption, birth,
death, divorce, separation of members over a period of time etc.;
★ HH, in itself, is neither jt nor nuclear but becomes either of these by virtue
of being under progression/regression in the process of its developmental
phases
 ★ conceptual difference between family & HH- it’s family that’s nuclear or
joint whereas HH can be called as simple or complex

❖ Marriage and Its Types-

● Socially acknowledged & approved sexual union b/w 2 adult individuals
● Malinowski- contract for the production & maintenance of children
● Collins Dictionary of Socio- socially acknowledged & sometimes legally ratified
union b/w and adult male & female (presupposes heterosexual orientation of 2
consenting adults, not deemed valid today)

● Edmund Leach- called it ‘bundle of rights’, and some of these rights are:
★ Opportunity to legitimise offspring
★ Socially approved access to spouse’s sexuality, labour & property
★ Establishment of affinal relationships b/w persons & groups
★ Confers domestic rights, basis of formation of HH, DoL etc, in family
Contemporary trends have rendered many of the above aspects as
incomplete or irrelevant (affair b/w 2 adults of opposite sexes only,
mechanism for procreation only etc.).
Recognising such limitations, Edmund Leach- all universal definitions of
marriage are vain.
● Types of marriages:
1. Civil marriage & ritualistic marriage
2. Monogamy & polygamy
3. Endogamy & exogamy
4. Arranged & love marriages
5. Anuloma (hypergamy) & pratiloma (hypogamy)
6. Preferential marriage
7. Re- marriage
8. Community specific rules based marriages
9. Marriage taboos
(Incest taboo- Pg. 245, NS)

● New form- convenience or sham marriage (for citizenship rights)

● Changes in marriages occurring with changing times:

★ Plural→monogamy (Pak, Hindu Marriage Act in India)
★ Dual employment of H-W- factors affecting marital relations today
★ Same-sex marriages (given legal recognition in some countries; James
Neill- they’ve existed earlier also but in subtle form, legal recognition is a
recent phenomena

★ Negative trends:
➔ Karve- dowry becoming more entrenched with increasing edu of
groom
➔ Child marriage still practiced in some parts of India
➔ Polygamy still prevalent among Muslims & some tribes in India
despite being outlawed by other communities
➔ Hypergamy- perpetuates notion of inferiority of women
 ➔ Breakdown of traditional values, individualisation & legal reforms-
divorces & marital breakdowns increasing

● Critics of marriage:
★ Feminists- promotes patriarchy
Tanya Evans- women considered as husband’s property
Jean Hardisty- propaganda of state and social institutions as a cure of all
maladies

★ Dysfunctional aspects- marital rapes (give recent happenings),

violence, dowry etc.

● Marital breakdown & family decline

★ Brenda Almond- family is fragmenting, shift from family concerned as a
bio institution based upon child rearing towards being an institution for 2
people’s emotional needs & desire for each other

★ Patricia Morgan- factors like- increased cohabitation, declining fertility,

increased single parenthood, children born outside marriage & rising in
living alone members- indicative of family decline
It’s harmful for children & society- providing financial support for
lone-parent family; declining fertility- due to late marriages, cohabitation
will result in more aged population becoming a burden upon working
population
★ Instances of breakdown are culture & context specific as well:
➔ Nicky Hart- inverse relation b/w income and marital breakdown
and also b/w age & marriage (low income @ young age- more
financial strain- breakups)
Status of parents (married v/s divorced) also affects divorce rate
of married children
➔ T Noble- rate more certain in occupations like- actors, lorry
drivers, authors etc.
➔ William Goode- chances rise if spouses from difft. ethnic & social
backgrounds

★ 2 types of threat to marriage & family life:

1. From alternatives to marriage:
➔ Cohabitation
➔ Living apart together (LAT)
➔ Single-person HHs

2. Marital breakdown- occurring due to following reasons:

➔ Value of marriage declining (Parsons & Fletcher
contend this)- people expect & demand more from
marriage & hence likely to end it
Giddens says that divorce rate does not indicate rejection
of a marriage but indicates rising expectation from married
life.
 ➔ Conflict b/w spouses- Edmund Leach- nuclear family
suffers from emotional overload due to isolation from
wider kinship network; family specialises in fewer
functions in an industrial society- fewer bonds to unite-
eco bond considerably weakened when family ceases to
be a unit of production; William Goode- nuclear families
carrying heavy emotional burden and such social units
become relatively fragile
➔ The ease of divorce- stigma attached to divorce has
reduced making it easier to escape from marriage;
changing attitudes towards divorce institutionalised by
changes in law making divorces easier to obtain
➔ Life’s becoming more secular, no longer sacrament and
much of a personal thing now
➔ Nicky Hart- says that conflict between worker role of
female and normative expectations of family also lead to
marital breakdown
★ Critique:
● Neal Gross argues that what he calls regulated traditions -
traditions that constrain and limit people's behaviour in families -
have declined in importance. These include rigid gender
divisions within marriage, the confinement of childbirth to within
marriage, and the requirement that marriage is a lifelong
relationship. However, this has not resulted in a free-for-all in
which anything goes (as seems to be implied by
individualization theorists like Ulrich Beck). This is because
meaning-constitutive traditions have remained important.
These traditions involve culture, lifestyle and values that continue
to shape people's behaviour without imposing strict and inflexible
rules on that behaviour. Thus, for example, people continue to
value marriage and see it as an ideal without regarding it as the
only possible option. For this reason, individualization theories
might overestimate the amount of change in family life and
underestimate the degree of continuity
★ 2
Lineage & Descent

❖ Lineage- The term "lineage" consists of all descendants in one line of a particular
person through a determinate number of generations. Where the living members
constitute a recognized social group it may be called a lineage group. Sometimes
the lineage consists of all descendants through male of a single ancestor which is
called a patrilineage or an agnatic lineage; one consisting of descendants
through female is known as matrilineage.
Can be understood in 2 ways:
● As a ‘principle’- on basis of which alignment or inheritance is chosen in a
linear fashion
● Also refers to a particular type of group- ‘kingroup’ in which members
have a common ancestor (usually an actual remembered person not a
mythological one as in case of a clan) whose identity is known, generally
considered as the group’s founder
 Lineage usually has exclusive common ritual observance, perhaps totemic in
nature and is usually exogamous. The clan is often the combination of a few
lineages
Radcliffe Brown defines lineage as sib, which is a consanguineous group, but its
members do not share a common residence.
❖ Descent- principle whereby a person is socially affiliated with the group of his/
her 2 parents, 4 grandparents and so on (hence, individual belongs
simultaneously to many descent groups)
A descent group is any social group in which membership depends on common
descent from a real or mythical ancestor (ex- Brahmins→sage Vashishta)
Restrictions are placed to limit its size wherein a common known ancestor can be
a cut-off or in form of other symbols as well

Descent talks of origin, lineage talks of inheritance. Lineage is a specific part of

the descent group

❖ Avenues for transmission of descent group membership from parents→children:

1. Unilineal- descent can be traced in the male line from father→son
(patrilineal) or in the female line from mother→daughter (matrilineal)

2. Duolineal/bilineal- traced in both father’s and mother’s line for difft

attributes, to one parent for some purposes (for instance, inheritance of
property) and to the other parent for other purposes (for instance, the
inheritance of ritual or ceremonial roles)- . Example: Yako tribe of Nigeria
(one side movable property other side immovable)

3. Ambilineal (cognatic)- affiliates individual with kinsmen through father’s

or mother’s line on the basis of his/her choice, ex- The Samoans of the
South Pacific
4. Parallel descent- rare form, descent lines- sex specific (men→sons,
women→daughters)
5. Cross/alternative type descent- rare form, men→daughters &
women→sons

❖ Descent groups- can be of various types

● most common- family (also the smallest descent group)
● No of families linked by a common ancestor with a known identity- form
group called ‘lineage’
● No of lineages linked with a common ancestor whose identity is unknown-
clan (gotra in India)
● No of clans having a common mythical ancestor- phratory, en
endogamous group; phratory= caste in India, sometimes

● Functions of descent groups:

★ Lineage & kinship- define ID of a person, distinguish b/w outsiders
& insiders
★ Exogamous: Strong sense of shared identity.
★ Evans Pritchard- earlier, kinship groups could convert into war
groups
 ★ Rules of inheritance coordinate with descent in most societies, but
not always in a 1 to 1 manner.
★ Individual’s eco rights- defined by his/her position in descent
group
★ Property management: descent group will have a built-in authority
structure, with power normally exercised by senior males, and it
may well own corporate property.
★ Jural Units: in many societies, unilineal descent groups internally
decide their own disputes, externally act as a unified group for
feuds, fights
★ In addition to property of various kinds, rights and obligations,
esoteric knowledge, crafts and skills, etc., might be passed on in
accordance with kinship roles, succession to office to
chieftainship, kingship, dynasty politics etc. In such cases, an
individual's status is said to be 'ascribed', not 'achieved'.
Patriarchy and SDoL

Patriarchy
❖ Sylvia Walby- a system of social structures & practices in which men dominate &
oppress women, it operates through multiple structures acc to her:
● Production relations in HH- women subjected to unpaid labour
● Discriminatory allocation of occupations in labour market
● Capture of political power
● Male violence
● Patriarchal relations in sexuality- sexual double standards
● Patriarchal cultural institutions- edu, media etc.
It can be private- practised in HH or public- patriarchal society’s response to
wom women
❖ Reflected within family through:
● Authority structure
● Inheritance rights & other entitlements
● Rituals
● DoL

❖ Reflected in society through:

● Gender discriminations
● SDoL
● Physical & sexual violence

❖ There’s a distinctive gender pattern among edu courses taken up across the
states (Annual Status of Higher Edu in States & UTs in India Report, 2015)

❖ In India, as a social institution, it gives rise to values like- male child preference,
sexual purity, fasting by women, abstinence of women from public discourse etc

❖ A patriarchal structure where a number of factors coincide:

● when descent is reckoned patrilineally
● when inheritance of major property is from father to son
● when residence is patrilocal, and
 ● When authority is concentrated in the hands of senior males
There is no society on earth whose features are exactly the reverse of these. For
even in matrilineal, matrilocal systems, which are fairly rare, major property is
usually controlled by males. For this reason, the term 'matriarchy', though often
found in literature, is probably a misnomer, and there is no conclusive evidence to
support that matriarchy was a universal early stage in development of kinship
systems.

❖ Ann Oakley- patriarchy began with industrialisation wherein women were

branded as ‘housewives’
Women suffer from patriarchal values instilled in all stratification systems
because of the following factors:
1. Unequal wages
2. Domestication of wife
3. Violence in 2 forms:
● Symbolic violence (eg- pornography)
● Expressive violence
4. State’s apathetic acts

❖ Caste also viewed as a patriarchal institution in India- role of women is that of

domestic workers across the castes & together with religion- defines role of
Indian women in society
● Uma Chakravorty- Brahmanical traditions glorify obedient women and
loyalty to husband
● While her status, on 1 hand, is of Devi or goddess in scriptures; she is
given treatment of Dasi or slave- Devi dichotomy (Veena Das)
● Devi-dasi dichotomy- refers to the duality, rather duplicity, in treatment of
womenfolk in Indian society where hierarchies of caste subsume the
gender factor (UC women holds a more revered position than a
marginalised man). Sexuality of a UC woman is carefully contained &
regulated w/in patriarchal family setup whereas lower caste women are
@ the receiving end of sexual exploitation.
Devi- attributed to UC women, a woman of high birth whereas dasi- lower
caste/class women doing menial jobs who are easily accessible &
exploited

Sexual Division of Labour

❖ Process of dividing work between different people on the basis of sex & gender,
2 approaches to it:
1. Biological approach-
● Tiger & Fox- ‘Human Biogrammar’- The bio-grammar is a
genetically based programme which predisposes mankind to
behave in certain ways. Because of this, compared to women,
men are more aggressive and dominant. The differences are
partly due to genetics inherited from men's primate ancestors, and
partly due to an adoption of a way of life. Thus, male dominance
is a sex-linked characteristic. Male and female adapted to a
sexual division of labour in a hunting society. Compared to
 cultural change, genetic change is slow - thus male and female
bio- grammar of a hunting society is still in existence. Therefore,
the division of labour is sex based.

● Parsons- expressive (female- she provides warmth, security

and emotional support to her husband) & instrumental (male-
instrumental roles lead to stress and anxiety, and the expressive
female relieves the tension by providing him with love,
consideration and understanding) roles. Argues that for the family
to operate effectively as a social system there must be a clear-cut
division of labour.
Critique- Ann Oakley- the expressive housewife/mother role is
not necessary for the functioning of the family unit. It merely exists
for the convenience of the male
● According to John Bowlby, it is essential for mental health and
wellbeing that infants and young children experience a warm,
intimate and continuous relationship with their mother. His
argument implies that there is a genetically based, psychological
need for close and intimate mother-child relationship

● Murdock- biological differences (physical strength of men-

undertake the most strenuous tasks. Not handicapped by the
physiological burdens of pregnancy and nursing, men can take on
the activities like hunting, fishing; women can take on activities of
gathering food, cooking & child-bearing)- led to practically defined
gender roles
Critique- Ann Oakley-he is biased as he looked at other cultures
from both western and male eyes

2. Socio- cultural approach-

● Ann Oakley- sex- natural or biological, gender- cultural construct
and it assigns difft social roles to gender with differential rewards
causing gender inequality & gender stratification
patriarchy began with industrialisation wherein women were
branded as ‘housewives’- this term has 4 characteristics:
★ Exclusively for women
★ Dependent on men
★ Status of non- work against real eco, productive work of
men
★ Unpaid, privatised 7 isolated- housework

Cites examples where women have taken up stereotypical

‘masculine’ roles- women in L. American countries work in mines
Kibbutz- alternative to role played by mothers, Bruno
Bettleheim- Kibbutz highlight that close mother-child association
non-essential for effective socialisation
● Sherry B Ortner argues that women are universally defined as
close to nature because their physiology and its functions are
more concerned with the natural processes surrounding the
 reproduction of species. And so, they are entrusted with child care
and primary socialisation. They develop more personal and
intimate relations with others, especially their children. By
comparison, men have a wider range of contacts and less
personal and particular relationships by engaging in politics,
warfare and religion. Thus, men are seen as being more objective
and less emotional. In this way, it can be said that subordination
of women is due to the cultural evaluation of their biological
make up.
● Ernestine Friedl- examined H&G bands and small-scale
horticulture societies and argues that the distribution of scarce or
irregularly available resources (meat in hunting society) is the
source of power. Those who distribute such resources gain
prestige. Thus, in comparison to females, males are attached with
high prestige and honour. Similarly, in horticulture societies,
defending the property requires a lot of courage and sacrifices.
And so, a greater prestige and honour is attached with it, which
shows the dominance of men. Also, activities with danger are
undertaken by men, as loss of men can still ensure that the
population survives, but the loss of women cannot be adequately
compensated.

● Jessie Bernhard- benefits derived by men & women out of a

marriage- radically different or unequal

● Hoschild in his, ‘The Second Shift’- employed women doubly

harassed by men
● W Yeung- increased women’s movement into employment not
corresponded by increased involvement of men’s contri to HH
tasks & child care

❖ Hence, SDoL- a socio-cultural construct & NOT biological

❖ Questions about SDoL- raised during Women’s Liberation Movement of 1970s
❖ Cordelia Fine- M & W- not hardwired naturally with difft. interests/capabilities-
cultural & societal beliefs contri to these differences. Gender is recycled in a
highly gendered society in which children develop.

❖ Contemporary trends:
● Husband’s earnings insufficient to sustain a middle-income family hence
women taking to eco roles outside homes
● With weakening of religion’s hold, accompanying notions (pativrata,
streedharma etc.) also weakening
● Stereotypical ‘masculine’ jobs lapped up by females- ex.- combat role in
army (permanent commissioning & NDA test also allowed)
● Factories Act- equal treatment of M&W at workplaces

Contemporary trends in Kinship Patterns, Family and Marriage

❖ Can be viewed in terms of changing structure & functions of kinship groups:

 ● Modern contraceptives- limits size of family and improving choice &
freedom of woman, growth of individualism also
Dysfunction- psychological & behavioural changes among fam members
with individualism growing in small-sized fams
● Structural aspects- nuclearisation, declining patriarchy, weaning
authority of parents over children, rise of alternative kinship institutions
(live-ins etc.)
● Functional aspects- eco functions taken up by eco organisations, jural
rights by judiciary, edu by schools, primary socialisation by
creches/pre-schools or Kibbutz-like institutions in Israel

❖ Goran Therborn identifies some features of diversity common across societies:

● Declining influence of kinship groups
● Trend towards free selection of spouse
● Increasing recognition of women rights
● Higher levels of sexual freedom
● Increase acceptance towards same sex partnership

❖ New developments in family:

● Reconstituted family- spouses live with children of spouses from earlier
marriage as well as with current marriage (prevalent in W. countries);
issues with it:
★ biological parent elsewhere
★ cooperation issues
★ varying expectations

● Single parenthood
● Cohabitation/ live-ins- recent development in Indian legislation
regarding this- these relationships have gained legality w/in Domestic
Violence Act
● Dual career- working couple (concept of Mowrer)/Symmetrical nuclear
(roles same - both go to work, both take care of kids, etc.)
CHAPTER-9 Social Change in Modern Society

Sociological theories of Social Change

❖ Social Evolution- a universal movement from an indefinite unstable

homogeneity to definite stable heterogeneity. It is value loaded in terms of
direction and structure (towards complexity). Evolution expresses continuity and
direction of change, it means more than growth. Growth- implies direction of
change but essentially in terms of size or quality. Evolution involves something
more intrinsic, a change not only in size but also of structure.

❖ Progress (quantitative) - any change in the existing environment

that makes it easier for a person or a group to live. Example:
technology is considered an index of progress. Progress implies
change in direction towards some final desired goal. It involves a
value judgement.

Development (qualitative) - desirable form of social change. It is

value loaded in terms of proceeding in a particular direction which
is desired by the society and is planned. Example: FYPs

Change - value neutral. Represents only alteration. Change

in the system is a quantitative change, change of the system
is a qualitative change.

❖ Wilbert Moore - social change is a significant alteration in structure over time in

behaviour patterns and culture, including norms and values

A. Linear/ Evolutionary Theories of Social Change

❖ Notion of social evolution used in linear theories- taken from theories of biological
evolution
1. Comte, in ‘Law of the Three Stages’ (intellectual development- basis
of evolution):
● Theological stage- thinking guided by religious ideas & belief-
society is an expression of God’s will, religion dominates social
activities
● Metaphysical stage- started with Renaissance- society seen in
natural terms, imaginative thoughts questioned theological
dogmas
● Positivistic stage- started with new scientific discoveries, man
would measure empirically & explain conclusively all forms of
social behaviour in this stage; science of society- Socio will be
fully developed
Periods of- stability & upheaval- organic and critical periods
which inaugurate new phases
Some aspects remain constant during a SC- social stats, while
some change- social dynamics
2. Spencer termed as a Social Darwinist (refer phone notes) - believed in
‘survival of the fittest’
● Like organisms (organismic analogy to explain society), society
also made up of interconnected parts which become complex as
needs of society grow
● Progressive increase in society’s size (like organism's size
increases) (this increase is either due to internal factors like
population growth or due to external factors like migration),
followed by increase in differentiation & integration (higher it is,
higher the evolutionary stage)
● Focused on Individual unlike Comte who focused on larger units
like family, he condemned Comte’s theory by contending that he
was content to deal with evolution in realm of ideas
● He examined certain stages which the societies in course of their
evolution passed.
★ Simple society - herd or band
★ Compound society - tribe and chiefdom
★ Doubly compound society - city state and kingdom
★ Trebly compound society - empire and modern
nation-state

● Evolution- militant societies (warfare)→ industrial societies

(altruism, specialisation, achievement-based)

3. LT Hobhouse takes advancement in human knowledge as the chief

indicator of development and presents an evolutionary sequence of five
stages:
● Stage of preliterate societies
● Stage of literacy and proto-science - Babylon, China
● Stage of reflective thought - Vedic period
● Stage of critical thought - Greece
● Stage of modern science - from 16th century

4. Durkheim views social change as an evolution of a society from highly

undifferentiated to differentiated. This is a movement from a mechanical
and simple society to an organic and complex society. The increasing
differentiation will eventually replace the mechanical solidarity with
organic solidarity

5. Tylor- principal criteria for cultural devt- growth of industrial arts, scientific
knowledge, nature of social & pol organisation, etc.
Evolutionary sequence followed by
● Animism
● Polytheism
● Monotheism

6. L H Morgan- upholds a materialistic conception of evolution. He believes

that as human needs increase, man innovates and develops technologies
to satisfy those needs. With a dramatic change in technology, all other
 dimensions of social life change. He mentions seven stages of
technological development through which society has moved from
savagery to barbarism to civilization, moral evolution of society:
● primitive/savagery
● Barbaric
● Civilised

7. Ferdinand Tonnies- 2 social groups:

● Existing on Essential will- Gemeinschaft (community)-
peasants, artisans; homogeneous society (little chance of
change), small in size & population,- members interact informally,
little disorganisation & friction, family & religion- occupy central
role
● Existing on Arbitrary will- Gesellschaft (society)- businessman,
scientists, political class; heterogeneous (modern industrial
societies); formal, functional & specialised relationship among
members (contractual relationships); highly stratified and
conflict-borne; limited role of religion & social activities- secular
Societies evolve linearly from Gemein→Gesells
● Robert Redfield used concepts in folk→ secular or urban
societies

8. Conflict theories of social change:

● Hegel (dialectic idealism)- an idea (thesis) develops→ challenged
by an opposite idea (antithesis) & merges into a new form
(synthesis)→becomes thesis & it goes on

● Marx’s dialectic materialism- 6 MoPs, class struggle- drives social

change & real one will usher in a revolution resulting in est of
socialism & finally communism

❖
❖

❖ Cultural Lag-
● Idea developed by W F Ogburn
 ● Ogburn & Nimkoff- culture has 2 parts:
★ Material (eco changes, tech changes etc.)
★ Non- material (values, beliefs, religion)- also called adaptive
culture, changes more slowly than material culture

● Ex- eco changes influencing DoL have not affected patriarchal ideology
similarly; family planning technologies (i.e. material culture) have
advanced, but people take their time to accept them. Some sections of
the population may reject the very idea of 'family planning' and believe in
having a large family

● Again, when an event such as an increase in population or a depletion in

natural resources causes a strain in society, it takes some time for the
society to understand and absorb the strain and alter its values and
institutions to adapt to the change. But in order to function smoothly,
societies adjust to maintain and restore themselves.

● Cultural lag- phenomena of cultural changes being slower than material

● Traditional organisations & values take time in adjusting to new material

conditions

● Critique:
★ McIver & Page- theory is vague as it fails to explain which
aspects of culture lag behind
★ With fast communication- process has reversed, material changes
now slower than non-material changes

❖ Neo - Evolutionary Theory of Social Change:

● Parsons builds his theory based on the model of biological theory of
evolution. The fundamental principle of evolution is the capacity for
adaptation. This capacity depends upon two basic processes-
differentiation and integration, and change in culture is very important for
both. According to Parsons, cultural change accompanied by increasing
differentiation is characterised by increasing generalisation of cultural
values, which then helps in greater integration.

Applying this model, he identified five stages of evolution, according to

increasing level of differentiation and integration (PAHSM):
 ★ Primitive society, like Australian aborigines
★ Archaic society like Mesopotamia
★ Historical society like China and India
★ Seedbed (ideas given by these societies) society like Greece
★ Modern society like USA, Europe

He talks about evolutionary universals. If a civilization at a lower

evolutionary stage adopts certain evolutionary universals belonging to a
higher stage, it can easily leap over one or more stages altogether.
Example: Europe was at a lower stage of evolution than India and China,
but leapfrogged into modernity after Enlightenment and Renaissance

❖ Leslie White’s Energy theory of change- amount of energy harnessed is an

index level of development (compare US with India in terms of energy
consumption and levels of development). Energy is both cause and effect of the
process of transformation

❖ Critique:
● Franz Boas opposes the view that universal laws govern all societies
● Linear theories are value laden, hence non-objective- biases reflected in
nomenclature (savage, primitive etc.)
● No agreement upon any stage amongst difft. theorists
● Do not explain significant differences between societies at the same level
of evolution
● Armchair theories, rely on questionable secondary data
● No explanation for decline of certain great societies- Egyptian, Roman,
Greek
● Ignores external factors of change

B. Cyclical Theories of Social Change

❖ Cyclical theories of social change focus on the rise and fall of civilizations,
attempting to discover and account for these patterns of growth and decay

1. Oswald Spengler- pointed out that the fate of civilizations was a matter of
destiny. Each civilization is like a biological organism and has a similar life-cycle
of birth, maturity, old age and death; every society is born, matures & decays - an
inevitable cycle (ex- Roman empire, British empire); social change- may be in the
form of progress or decay; theory similar to ancient Hindu theory of Yuga

2. Pareto, in ‘A Treatise on General Sociology’- circulation of elites (lions &

foxes)- has divided the whole social system into two parts: elites and masses.
Elites consist of both governing and non-governing elites. Elites could be further
divided into two groups - residues of combination and residues of group
persistence.

The first group is imaginative, innovative, entrepreneurial, has a

readiness to take risks, craves novelty and originality. Whereas the
second group values prudence, cautiousness, traditionalism,
 safety and stability. The first rule by manipulation, while the
second by direct action.
The first group is politically called fox, economically called speculators and they
are non-idealists. The second group is politically called lion, economically called
rentiers and they are idealists.

When the first group is in power, a speedy change is seen in the society.
However, when people realise their demerits, they are replaced by the lions.
However, again in due course, people become dissatisfied due to absence of any
innovation or creativity in the society. And this readies the ground for the foxes to
again come to power. The process continues & this is called the ‘circulation of
elites’- which is the cause of social change

3. Arnold J Toynbee- studied 21 civilizations. He focuses on the key concepts of

challenges and response. He believes that every civilization arises through
double combined factors - the presence of a creative minority and environmental
conditions.

Every society faces challenges, at first from the environment, and later from
internal and external enemies. The creative minority devices various means to
deal with these challenges. The nature of responses to these challenges
determines the fate of a society. A society which fails to respond effectively, dies.
This may be due to failure of the creative power of the minority, masses
reluctance to follow the successful elites, thus resulting in a loss of unity

He does not believe that all civilizations will inevitably decay. He has pointed out
that while history is a series of cycles of growth and decay, each new civilization
is able to learn from the mistakes of, and borrow from, the other cultures.

4. Pitirim Sorokin, in ‘Social and Cultural Dynamics’- classification of society wrt

mode of perception of reality (acc to cultural mentality), which can be:
● Ideational (spiritual reality)- is abstract, concerned with faith; perceivable
only by mind
● Sensate (material reality)-practical; perceivable by senses, people seek
knowledge through science & materialism
● Idealistic (synthesis of the above 2)- a transitional phase between the
two extremes, it has characteristics of both the ideational and the sensate
culture

Social change follows a cyclic pattern (swinging like a pendulum- refer

Fig. 10.1, Pg.260- NS), culture moves from one direction to another. As
culture of a society swings towards 1 pure type, it’s countered by the
opposing cultural force in the form of development of new institutions &
normative patterns

Like spengler, viewed Western society of his time as sensate & declining,
overripe & ready to swing towards the ideational culture that emphasises
religion

Gave 2 principles:
 ● Principle of eminent change- main thrust for change comes
from w/in the system; forces of change- inherent in the nature of
culture itself
● Principle of limits- There’s a definite limit to change; limit to the
number of alterations that can develop in a system. When all
combinations are complete, repetition occurs, and hence societies
change instead of progressing or decaying.

Criticism:
● Speculative, not scientifically testable
● Portrays his prejudices with the modern society
● Subjective concepts- ideational & sensate
● No explanation for why social change should take this form

❖ Critique of cyclical theory:

● Horton and Hunt state that the cyclical theories fail to explain why
different societies respond differently to change
● Ritzer points out that they do not consider socio-psychological factors,
and cast masses as virtual pawns
● Too abstract & speculative

C. Structure Functionalist Theory of Social Change

Parsons gave concept of dynamic equilibrium or moving equilibrium- change

is progress from 1 stage of moving equilibrium to another

❖ Parsons viewed social change at two levels, firstly, change which emerges
from processes within the social system, and secondly, the processes of change
of the social system itself:
1. inside processes of a system also provide impulse for change; primary
factors related to processes of change within the social system are
increase in population, its density and aggregation. Factors causing strain
towards change are change in demographic factors, change in physical
environment, change in technology, new cultural configuration,
development of new religious ideas.
Parsons illustrated the processes of social change within the social
system by drawing examples from the family system. Earlier, families
performed the functions of reproduction, education, socialisation,
economic, recreational, etc. A process of differentiation takes place when
the society becomes more and more complex. Different institutions like
school, factories take over some of the functions of the family. New
norms, values and beliefs are shaped to integrate the new institutions
with the society

2. Certain flux in external situations tends to throw the system off-balance,

Change of the social system can occur through a revolution. But
Parsons does not believe that any revolution can bring about absolute or
radical change as predicted by Marx. It only brings about a certain degree
of change as - members starting the revolution develop their own
self-interest or often the goals of a revolution are not achievable
 ❖ Equilibrium, thus disturbed, restored to dynamic eq by the system itself (when
shared values are institutionalised), change is temporary overcome by systemic
forces

❖ Change occurs when- structural strain of a system > equilibrium force

❖ Through the change of the system, the society changes from Archaic (primitive)
to Intermediary (with population increase) to Lead Society (due to education,
Industrial Revolution, French Revolution, etc.) . However, this is not an
evolutionary theory as a society does not necessarily pass through all the stages.
Hence, this is also known as Neo-Evolutionary Theory

❖ Systems view of change- change is restorative:

★ Structures closely related
★ Functions- interrelated & interdependent (AGIL framework)
★ Any disturbance in energy flow or info flow- causes social change
★ Since system is integrated, a change in any functional
prerequisite produces change in others also

❖ Critique by Pierre L. Van Den Berghe:

● Social structure itself generates change through internal conflicts and
contradictions
● Cumulative dysfunction is possible, which can make chaotic revolution
inevitable
● Reaction to extra systemic change is not always adjustive

D. Post Modernist Perspective on Social Change

❖ Reject grand theories of social change, moved past the conflict-integration

debate

❖ One of its strands- Feminist Sociology:

● Emphasises centrality of gender in social change
● Social reality viewed differently by 2 sexes
● Rising awareness of rights, feminisation of workforce & women’s
movements- new dimensions of social change

❖ Post Structuralism- founded by Michael Foucault & James Derrida:

● Michael Foucault- modern institutions (prison, school & hospitals)-
increased surveillance & discipline in society
● Post modern society- more multi- cultural & diverse
● Jean Baudrillard- society no longer just dominated by eco structure
(opposed to what Marx said), now increasingly controlled by creations of
mass media

Development and Dependency

❖ Change is a value-neutral concept whereas development is a value-laden
concept. Only planned and desired changes can be described as development
❖ Development- progressive change from one lower state to a higher state of
well-being

❖ Dudley Seers states that development is about creating the right conditions. It is
the capacity to attain basic needs, job, equality, participation, adequate
educational levels belonging to a nation

❖ Classical sociologists’ evolutionary view of development- shift from

traditional/simple society→modern/industrialised society; model accused of
suffering from Western bias

❖ Contemporary notions of development- justice, rights, human development,

sustainability etc.

❖ Developed countries’ model of development- focused on material well-being-

imposed on independent countries post WW2 which subsequently faced net
outflow of resources, poverty, dependency on West

Classical economists- claimed that development and growth in the first world
will lead to trickle-down effect on the third world countries, Dependency theory
rejects this view
❖ Rise of dependency theories:
● Around 1950s in L.American countries which were under communist
influence
● saw development process as 1- creating dependency of developing
countries on the developed
● Offshoot of Marxian thinking- global haves & have-nots in the form of
highly unequal global N & S.

● Countries are underdeveloped due to their own cultural & institutional

faults- notion was rejected under this theory; Modernisation theory
(precursor to this)- gave following internal reasons for why developing
countries can’t become developed:
1. Governance issues within the country
2. Low levels of savings (hence, no investment, hence the following
point)
3. Lack of infra development
4. Lack of technical expertise

● Developing countries not poor due to lagging behind in scientific

advancements or Enlightenment values but due to being coercively
integrated into European economic system or the capitalist world
market as RM producers or as repositories of cheap labour (i.e external
factors- responsible)
● Eco, military & soft power- central to enforcement of unequal eco
relations
● Dominance of dominant is maintained not just through external agents but
also through elites of the dependent state

● There are three variants of dependency theory:

A. Dominant - Dependent Model- This developed in the late 1950s
under the guidance of the Director of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Latin America, Raul Prebisch:
★ poor countries exported primary commodities to the rich
countries, who then manufactured products out of those
commodities and sold it back to them (unequal exchange
& unfair terms of trade)

★ The ‘Value Added’ by mfg a usable product costs >

primary product used to make it, (nowadays difference is
in terms of wage structure wherein cheap labour is
outsourced by the developed country)

★ Therefore, poorer countries would never be earning

enough from their export earnings to pay for their imports.
These further results into BoP Crisis and a Debt Trap
which may further diminish the autonomy of the poor
countries

★ Solution- poorer countries should embark on programs of

import substitution so that they need not purchase the
manufactured products from the richer countries. The
poorer countries would still sell their primary products on
the world market, but their foreign exchange reserves
would not be used to purchase their manufactures from
abroad
★ Issues in following this policy:
1. the internal markets of the poorer countries were
not large enough to support the economies of the
scale used by the richer countries to keep their
prices low
2. second issue concerned the political will of the
poorer countries as to whether a transformation
from being primary products producers was
possible or desirable

B. Metro - Satellite Model:

★ According to this view, the capitalist system has enforced
a rigid international division of labour which is responsible
for the underdevelopment of many areas of the world

★ The dependent states supply cheap minerals, agricultural

commodities, and cheap labour and also serve as the
repositories of obsolescent technologies and
manufactured goods

★ These functions orient the economies of the dependent

states towards the outside: money, goods, and services
 do flow into dependent states, but the allocation of these
resources is determined by the economic interests of the
dominant states, and not by the economic interests of the
dependent state. This division of labour is ultimately the
explanation for poverty and there is little question but that
capitalism regards the division of labour as a necessary
condition for the efficient allocation of resources

★ This theory also believes that economic and political

power are heavily concentrated and centralised in
industrialised countries. Hence, any distinction between
economic and political power is spurious and
governments will take whatever steps are necessary to
protect private economic interests, such as those held by
multinational corporations

★ AG Frank suggests that developing

countries should make their own power
blocs on the line of OECD, to break the
monopoly of the developed countries.
Another option can be to isolate oneself
like erstwhile China and Paraguay. They
can also break away at a time when the
metropolitan country is weak, in time of
war or recession.

C. World Systems Theory

★ Extension of Marx’s Dialectical Materialism and Class
Struggle concepts on a global scale

★ In the 1960s international financial and trade systems

were beginning to be more flexible, in which national
governments seemed to have less and less influence

★ New global systems of communications, new world trade

mechanisms, the international financial systems, and
transfer of military links were influencing the world. These
factors created their own dynamic at the international
level, and at the same time, they were interacting with
internal aspects of each country.

★ Most well known version of this approach developed by

Immanuel Wallerstein- argues that the world capitalist
economic system is not merely a collection of
independent countries engaged in diplomatic and
economic relations with one another, but must instead be
understood as a single unit.
 ➔ Origin of modern-world system in 16th C
W.Europe & Americas when feudalism was
replaced by Capitalism
➔ Colonial exploitation produced a world system
made up of:
➢ Core- exploitative capitalist class on global
level, countries focusing on high-skill,
capital-intensive production, advanced
industrial countries. Political, economic
and military powers. Example: USA,
Germany, Japan

➢ Periphery- low skill, largely agri-based

countries, labour-intensive production and
extraction of RM. Example: several
countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia

➢ Semi-Periphery - occupy
an intermediate position.
Semi- industrialised,
middle-income countries
that extract profits from
the periphery and in turn
yield it to the core. Ex-
Mexico, Brazil, Argentina,
Chile

➔ Dominance of core countries over periphery, latter

forced to sell products at cheap prices and buy
former’s manufactured goods at high prices

➔ World system- int’l DoL in unequal terms

➔ Technology is the central feature of the core

proposition. Surplus flow of wealth occurs from
periphery to the core. The periphery depends on
the core for technology. However, both are
dependent on each other and change in one
affects the other as well

(refer- fig. 10.2, Pg.263- NS)

● Andre Gunder Frank, in ‘Development of Underdevelopment’-

★ Contemporary underdevelopment of L.American & Afro-Asian
countries due to artificial dependency historically created by the
West; underlined differences b/w:
1. Undevelopment- resources not being used
 2. Underdevelopment- resources actively used, but in a
way which benefits dominant states & not poor ones
where they’re found

● Theotonio Dos Santos defined dependency as a historical condition

which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it
favours some countries to the detriment of others and limits the
development possibilities of the subordinate economies. It is a situation in
which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the
development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is
subjected. Its features are:
1. Dependency characterises the international
system as composed of two sets of states,
variously described as dominant/dependent,
centre/periphery or metropolitan/satellite. The
dominant states are the advanced industrial
reference nations in the Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). The
dependent states are those states of Latin
America, Asia, and Africa which have low per
capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export
of a single commodity, or a few commodities, for
foreign exchange earnings.

2. The assumption that external forces are of singular importance to

the economic activities within the dependent states. These
external forces include multinational corporations, international
commodity markets, foreign assistance, communications, and any
other means by which the advanced industrialised countries can
represent their economic interests abroad

3. The relations between dominant and dependent states are

dynamic because the interactions between the two sets of states
tend to not only reinforce but also intensify the unequal patterns.
Moreover, dependency is a very deep-seated historical process,
rooted in the internationalisation of capitalism

● Neo-dependency theorists- stalling of Doha WTO round- symbolic of

western vested interests in promotion of unequal global trade framework

● Mahatma Gandhi, therefore, emphasised upon grassroot level

empowerment in villages as dependency can be curtailed only with
empowerment of those at the receiving end of development process
Solution is self-sufficiency. It does not mean autarky but a controlled
integration with the world.

● National interest can only be satisfied by addressing the needs of the

poor within a society, rather than the satisfaction of corporate or
governmental needs
● Alternative approaches to dependency theory- sustainable development,
bottoms up development, rights based approach etc.

● Optimistic view of Dependency Theory:

Fernando Henrique Cardoso believes that the main problem faced by
the undeveloped countries is the lack of autonomous technology and a
developed sector of capital goods. To develop these, they need to insert
themselves into the circuit of international capitalism. The inflow of foreign
investments creates islands of highly developed modern enterprises in
the sea of backwardness and traditionalism. These islands serve as an
example, they educate a skilled working class, train a local managerial
elite, open up opportunities for cooperating subsidiary enterprises and
produce incentives to imitate their economic success.
Entrepreneurial motivations are born and spread, the local middle class
slowly arises and early accumulation of local capital begins. At some
stage, these incremental quantitative changes may produce a qualitative
leap and takeoff to indigenous growth and development, gradually
diminishing the dependence
The global economic interconnections appear as means towards ultimate
emancipation rather than instruments of continuing subjugation.
Examples: Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong,
China
● Critique:
★ Gunnar Myrdal- developmental deficit- not completely due to
dependency, but also value deficit & institutional inadequacies in
3rd world countries

★ Do not provide any substantive empirical evidence to support its

arguments. There are few examples that are provided but many
exceptions exist which do not fit in with their core periphery
theory, like the newly emerged industrial countries of South East
Asia

★ Fails to account for rapid eco development in E.Asian economies

& some L.American countries (Brazil & Mexico)

★ Goldthorpe - fail to explain the rise and fall of Latin American

countries - they developed borrowing technology from the USA,
but fell due to corruption and political turmoil. Therefore,
dependency model lacks empirical evidence

★ They consider ties with multinational corporations as detrimental,

while one view has been that they are important means of transfer
of technology, Amartya Sen- 3rd world countries have benefitted
from tech transfers and revolutionary changes in social sectors
(health, edu & communication)
 ★ North v/s South Korea’s example

★ Eurocentric biases inherent- assumption that industrialization &

possession of industrial capital- crucial requisites for eco
progress; there is a Eurocentric bias in de-emphasizing of
production undertaken by women, and in not realising the
hazardous implications for the environment of industrialization

★ Not reflective of changed socio-eco & political circumstances of

the contemporary world- developed nations closing borders for
trade & capital (ex- Trade wars, MAGA, immigration laws,
discontinuation of GSP by USA with India etc.)

Agents of Social Change

❖ 3 basic sources of social change:

1. Discovery - A shared human perception of an aspect of reality which
already exists. It is an addition to the world’s store of verified knowledge
but it becomes a factor in social change only when it’s put to use, not
when it’s merely known.
2. Inventions - A new combination or a new use of existing knowledge.
Inventions can be material (technology) or social (alphabet, trade union).
Each invention may be new in form (in shape or action), in function (what
it does), in meaning (its long-range consequences) or in principle (the
theory or law on which it is based).
Innovations are rarely accepted totally. The specific attitudes and values
of the society, the manifest usefulness of the innovations, the
compatibility of the innovations with the existing culture, vested interests,
and the role of change agents are some of the important factors that
affect the degree of acceptance of and resistance to social change.

SC Dube - study of Community Development Program of Planning

Commission in UP covering 153 villages. People accept which can be
more strictly called technological innovations. Example: seeds, fertilizers,
which give immediate results but those that affect social structure like
cooperative methods, land reforms, improved sanitation are accepted
slowly. Dube also highlights the importance of communication in bringing
change

3. Diffusion - refers to the spread of cultural traits from one group to

another. It operates both within and between societies. It takes place
whenever societies come into contact with each other. Diffusion is a
two-way process. The British gave us English; but they adopted several
terms in English from us, for example: Sahib, Juggernaut. Diffusion is
also a selective process. We adopted the English language, but not their
beef-eating habits. Diffusion generally involves some modification of the
borrowed elements of culture either in form, function or meaning

❖ Various factors of social change:

1. Cultural factors- culture constantly loses & gains components, main
sources of cultural change- invention (discovery of new cultural ideas),
discovery (meeting ideas new to oneself) & diffusion (spread of ideas,
culture & objects to other societies)

2. Ideas and values- wide scale societal changes brought by new ideas &
modification of old ideas in a new context (ex- Weber’s PESC); Conflict
over incompatible values and beliefs can be an important source of
change, example: caste system. Conflicts between group within a society,
have been and are a major source of innovation and change, example:
French Revolution

3. Social structure- changes arising out of tensions & conflicts emerging

from existing social structure (ex- Karl Marx’s theory)
According to Ottenberg, a society which stresses conformity and trains
the individual to be highly responsive to the group such as the Zunis is
less receptive to the change than a society like the Ileo who are highly
individualistic and tolerate considerable cultural variability.

4. Political factors- ruling class defines political atmosphere in a society,

redistribution of power due to big pol events like revolutions, coups etc.;
gradual changes with far reaching pol initiatives like UAF

5. Environmental & physical factors- disasters, climatic changes bring

changes in society; nowadays CC & Global Warming are & will continue
to bring changes

6. Economic factors- KM- true social change can only come with change in
eco infra (ex- industrialization, capitalism, discovery of oil in ME, rapid
technological devt- Japan, China)

7. Demographic factors- changes due to change in birth rate, death rate,

migration etc. (CC induced, conflict induced migration can also effect
social change particularly in the social fabric of the host countries)

8. Religious factors- religion- can act as an agent of social change or resist

it (ex- Weber’s PESC)

9. Technological factors- IR, Ogburn’s Cultural lag theory. Means of

transport, medicine, surgery, mass media of communications, space and
computers technology, vaccine development in the wake of COVID-19
etc. have affected the attitudes, values and behaviour of people across
societies

10. Conflict & change- structural strain, deprivation, social divisions have led
to conflicts which have brought about change
 11. Social movements & change- organised efforts of groups of people to
bring deliberate change in values, norms, institutions, culture
relationships & traditions of society; they generate new identities &
perspectives

12. The role of individuals in social change - It has been pointed out that
the contribution by men of genius and leaders to social change is
important. There were also charismatic leaders who owed their positions
to personal qualities, and left upon events the mark of their own
convictions. (maybe individual- MKG, Martin Luther King Jr., or collective-
Satyashodhak Samaj)

❖ Technology and Social Change:

● Empowering people - Kisan Credit Card,
Aadhar, Twitter, Printing Press, Railways
● Creating regional imbalances - Smart Cities
● Proletarization due to automation and deskilling
● Impact on Family
● AI- associated challenges of unemployment, mass surveillance, social
engineering, racial profiling through usage by LEAs

❖ Economy and Social Change:

● Women SHGs, MGNREGA
● Land Reforms
● Demonetization
● DBT
● Decentralised finance

❖ Culture and Social Change:

● Sanskritization, Westernisation
● Religious Revivalism and Fundamentalism

❖ Law and Social Change:

● Section 377 of IPC
● Reservation
● Article 21A
● Triple Talaq
● Marital rape exception

❖ Religion and Social Change:

1. Interaction between Religion and Social Order:
Social Order as a concept may imply one or many of the following
meanings (i) Arrangement of institutions in the society; (ii) Arrangement of
roles and statuses in the society; (iii) A smooth, well-coordinated
functioning of this 'structure'.
 2. Salient features of Religion:
● Religion has a cognitive function
● Religion has an intellectual function
● Religion is a social institution because community of believers
constitutes its basis
● Religion is an ensemble of rituals and beliefs
Most often religious sentiments and symbols are invoked, new
meanings are attributed to rituals and beliefs, and in the process
religion becomes a vehicle of collective mobilisation, for a group
of believers who would like to be 'liberated'

3. Social Change:
● Religion and the Economic Order: Weber PESC, religion an
illusion Marx

● Religion and the Political Order: Every religion has a political idea
- a mode of power and authority, a particular understanding of
sovereignty. In other words, 'Kingdom of God' and 'Darul Islam'
are political ideas. Hindu caste system, Kshatriya is ruler. Many
kings clearly remained subordinated to the authority of the Pope.

● Religion and the Cultural Order - Durkheim - totem as collective

effervescence

Education and Social Change

❖ The term 'education' is derived from the Latin word, educare which means, 'to
bring up', 'to lead out', and 'to develop'. In the simplest sense, therefore,
education refers to the process of bringing up, leading out, and developing
individuals as mature, adult members of society.

❖ School- process of inculcating distinct qualities & traits through explicit

instructions or implicit inhibition as part of growing up amidst fam members, kin &
peer groups

❖ In traditional societies- function performed by families, alternatives now (school,

college); earlier mostly linked to religion & philosophy, today- more secular &
inclusive

❖ Mannheim argued that no teaching was sound unless it trained people to be

conscious of the social situation in which they find themselves, and to be able
after careful deliberation, to make their choices and take decisions.
Education, must therefore be for mobility, for flexibility of thought and action, for
producing individuals with a high general level of culture so that they adapt to
changing economic and social conditions

❖ Edu & social change linked in following way:

1. Initiate social change
 2. Capacity to welcome change
3. Equality of opportunity
4. Moral agent
5. Eco role
6. Fights orthodoxy, promotes liberal ideas & develops tolerance to diverse
ideas
7. Social mobility
8. Evaluate change; focuses attention leading to change

❖ Views and perspectives of difft SOT:

A. Functionalists:
● Durkheim- it’s an agent of transmission of social norms & imparts
skills sustaining DoL
said that education is crucial in terms of preserving a certain
degree of homogeneity, and ingraining the essential elements of
collective life
It creates social solidarity - the welding of a mass of individuals
into a united whole. Individuals learn to cooperate with those who
are neither their kin nor their friends. Learn to respect rules,
self-control. Schools transmit both - general values which provide
the 'necessary homogeneity for social survival' and specific skills
which provide the 'necessary diversity for social cooperation'

He argued that education is only the image and reflection of

society. It imitates and reproduces the latter; it does not create it.
Education can be reformed only if society itself is reformed.

Critique -
1. In multicultural societies, which culture will you teach in
schools?
2. Transmit dominant class culture, which serves the interest
of the ruling class rather than society as a whole.
3. Emphasises individual competition through the exam
system rather than encourage social solidarity

● Parsons- school- focal socialising agency, represents society

in miniature, est differential reward for differential treatment
principle, they are the mechanism for role allocation in a
specialised industrial economy; instils- value of achievement &
value of equal opportunity (in American society)
Criticism- inadequate attention to the possibility of edu system’s
values being of a ruling minority instead of being that of society
(Pg. 664-665, H & H)

B. Feminists:
● McRobbie & Sue Lee- edu reproduces appropriate feminine
roles in girls
● Paul Willis- promotes aggressive masculinity
C. Conflict:
● Althusser- edu- most impt ISA appropriated by ruling class to
pursue own interests and reinforce dominant ideology, reproduces
labour force

● Ivan Illich- school- suffocates creativity & deskills individual

making them dependent on capitalist system; promotes passive
consumption

● Bowles & Gintis-

★ formal parts of school curriculum (called hidden
curriculum) correspond to needs of capitalists by
providing a surplus of skilled, hardworking, docile,
obedient & highly motivated labour force
Working of HC in shaping future WF:
1. American edu system creates an unimaginative &
unquestioning WF- easily manipulated by
employers
2. Encourages acceptance of hierarchy as schools
organised on hierarchical principles of authority
(teachers order, students obey; lil control over
subjects taught or way of studying etc.)
3. Students learn to be motivated by external
rewards like WF in capitalist society.
Due to lil control over/involvement in school work
students don’t get much satisfaction from
studying; instead they are satisfied by the external
reward of qualification at the end of studies.
Similarly, work in cap system intrinsically
unsatisfying as it’s not organised acc to human
need for fulfilling work but acc to capitalist’s need
to reap max profits therefore workers motivated by
external reward of wage packets
4. Lil connections estd b/w the lessons, knowledge-
fragmented/compartmentalised into academic
subjects—--how WF is fragmented in capitalist
system through breaking of jobs into specific tasks
denying workers knowledge of overall production
making difficult for them to set up in competition
against their employers

★ Edu indirectly benefits capitalism through legitimation of

inequality- as society appears just, CC doesn’t develop &
stability of society- unthreatened
★ Critique:
➔ Studies show many students scantily regard
school rules & little respect for authority of
teacher; Paul Willis-working class ‘lads’ learned
behaviour in ways quite opposite to capitalism’s
supposed need for docile workforce
 ➔ David Reynolds- much of the British schools’
curriculum doesn’t promote development of an
ideal employee under capitalism (neither the skills
nor uncritical passive behaviour)
➔ Even if the HC could be shown to encourage
docility, presence of Bowles & Gintis themselves
w/in formal curriculum- undermines their claim abt
edu

● Raymond Boudon- limited role in providing avenues for social

mobility, unequal access to quality edu based on one’s class
(children of working class- working class suited edu)

● Paul Willis- differential edu leads to differential reproduction of

cultural values

● Pierre Bourdieu- edu also helps in reproducing cultural capital

which influences acquisition of other capitals also (social, eco)

● Gramsci- the possibility of social change largely depends on the

education of the working class. Political revolutions are always
preceded by the creation of a new cultural climate, so he was
always insistent on the need to educate workers

Kamat conceptualised the relationship between education and social

change in India in three stages:
1. Early British period- end of the 19th century- the colonial
socio-economic and political structure was established in India. However,
it also played a kind of liberating role in breaking down traditional norms
and values, which were in consonance with the older feudal,
socio-economic politics and were a hindrance to itself. It also sowed the
seeds of new norms and values - of a bourgeoisie society and modern
nationalism. This liberating influence was internalised and worked in two
directions:

1) Towards a close scrutiny of the indigenous

social systems and culture leading to powerful
movements of social and religious reform
movements like Satya Shodhak Samaj

2) Towards the process of self-discovery, self-assessment in the

context of the new situation, leading to the creation of an
alternative centre of social cohesion, the anti-imperialist
movement for national liberation

2. B/w two world wars- education assumed a mass character.

Occupational and social mobility occurred among segments of population
that were hitherto unnoticed. So far, education had spread mainly to the
upper caste and urban upper strata in society. Now it began to percolate
 to sections lower in the social hierarchy, the middle castes and middle
strata. This carried the process of nationalism and social awakening still
further, to the working class in the towns and to the peasantry in the
countryside. The process considerably strengthened the movement for
national liberation as well as the movement for social change. Meanwhile,
the growth of the colonial system of education was developing serious
contradictions within itself and also vis-à-vis the colonial socio-economic
structure. This provided an added edge to the principle contradiction
between British imperialism and the Indian people. This contradiction was
reflected in large-scale unemployment among the educated on the one
hand and the liberating influence in the strength and militancy of the
powerful student and youth movement on the other.

3.Post-Independence period- mid 60s- the process of social and political

awakening took further strides. Its two aspects- conformity and liberation,
were also operating. At the same time, the contradiction within the
education system, in relation to the development, socio- economic
structure has also sharpened.

❖ Education and the Disprivileged - Bhattacharya - To the extent the previously

disprivileged are brought within the ambit of institutionalised education there are
three modalities of articulation between the system of privileges and the
education system:

(a) education reproduces and perpetuates inequalities between the privileged

and the disprivileged, or

(b) education enables a part of the disprivileged to attain upward social mobility
without affecting privileges as a system, or

(c) education plays an adversarial and even subversive role, challenging

privileges or inequality as a system.

The first mode preserves homeostasis, the second submerses homeostasis

through co-optation of the upward mobile, the third proposes metastasis or a
subversion of the regime of privileges

❖ Criticism:
● Our 12th FYP- gave the U (universality) without Q (quality) syndrome-
focus only on numbers (ex- RTE, SSA)

● Tawney- Tadpole theory- only the ‘top of the bottom’ get sponsorship
from state (resulting in Harijan elites & tribal elites in case of India)

Science, Technology and Social Change

❖ Evolution of mankind can be seen in terms of tech evolution as well (various

inventions, historical epochs, GR in India, Japan’s development due to S&T,
printing press, nuclear tech- pros & cons, IT- pros & cons, FB’ connectivity
revolution, Tesla- EV, alternative habitations being explored on other planets, GM
crops, vaccines etc.)
❖ Printing press - Benedict Anderson has argued that this helped the growth of
nationalism, the feeling that people who did not even know of each other’s
existence feel like members of a family. It gave people who would never meet
each other a sense of togetherness. Anderson thus suggested that we could
think of the nation as an ‘imagined community

❖
❖

❖ Negative consequences:
● Over-reliance on tech- leading to shift from being adapted to
environment → tendency to change the environment- causing CC;
Jacques Ellul - 'The Technological Society' - claims that in modern
industrial societies, technologism has engulfed every aspect of social
existence in much the same way Catholicism did in the middle ages. The
loss of human freedom and the large-scale destruction of human beings
and the planet are due to the increasing use of certain types of
technology which has begun to threaten the life support systems of the
earth as a whole.
Examples- concerns around privacy of citizens with generation of Big
Data, FRTs by LEAs resulting in racial profiling, social engineering by big
tech platforms to sustain consumer engagement with apps, AI leading to
large scale unemployment, no accountability fixation when autonomous
vehicles commit accidents, cyberterrorism- new domain in warfare,
phishing attacks/malware/trojan causing moneylaundering & online
burglaries—-- tech threatening humans
Environmental damage by tech-
1. crypto mining causing emissions
2. social media promoting consumerism-unsustainable lifestyles
3. problem of space debris with proliferating state-sponsored, pvt
space missions
 4. Unsustainable battery disposal methods (battery usage rising with
EV) causing leaching of hard metals, emissions
5. Infrastructural development- sponge cities/urban flooding,
landslides in ecologically fragile areas due to blasting, illegal sand
mining causing floods
6. Bottom trawling/mechanised fishing- depleting fish stocks,
detrimental for small scale fishermen dependent on primitive
methods
● Luddites vandalised industrial machinery

● Robert Blauner- alienating aspects of tech (Marx- tech alienates man

from fruits of his own labour)

● According to Marx, even the formation of social relations, mental

conceptions and attitudes are dependent upon technology. This is
because with a change in forces of production, relations of production
change. Thus, technological innovation leads to a change in the
superstructure.