Marxist perspectives criticize the market inequities and the welfare state’s ineffectiveness in addressing these issues. Rooted in Karl Marx’s ideas, they advocate for socialism or communism as alternatives to capitalism. Despite the collapse of many communist regimes, Marxist critiques of welfare systems remain relevant, emphasizing their contradictory nature and inability to resolve capitalism’s deeper problems.
Marxist perspectives criticize the inequities of the market, but also he ineffectiveness of the welfare state in challenging or combatting these inequalities.
Marxism, Socialism and Communism
Some of these critiques are rooted in the ideas of Karl Marx, a 19th-century economist and philosopher. Marx argued that capitalism is an exploitative system where the working class is taken advantage of by the capitalist class through the labor market. He believed this exploitation would eventually lead to a revolution, replacing capitalism with socialism. In a socialist state, the people would collectively own the means of production, and everyone’s needs would be met.
Marxists are typically socialists, though some differentiate between socialism and communism. Communism refers to a state where the need for government control fades because the people fully control production.
Marxists see socialism or communism as better alternatives to both capitalist markets and the welfare state. However, their ideas are often criticized for being overly idealistic, as they don’t offer clear steps to achieve such a society. Instead, they emphasize the need for revolutionary, rather than gradual, change.
This revolutionary approach has not gained widespread support in Britain or other Western European countries. While some countries, such as the USSR and post-World War II Eastern European nations, experimented with communist rule, these regimes mostly collapsed in the 1980s. Today, only countries like China and Cuba maintain modified versions of communism.
Marxist Criticism of the Welfare State
Marxist scholars have focused more on critiquing welfare capitalism than advocating for socialist revolutions. Marx himself analyzed early welfare reforms, such as 19th-century factory legislation, as part of his critique of capitalism. However, modern academics have taken this further.
In the 1970s, Gough and Ginsburg offered strong critiques of the British welfare state from a Marxist perspective.
Ginsburg (1979) argued that welfare institutions serve capitalism by controlling and suppressing people. For instance, social security programs stigmatize claimants and push them into low-wage jobs.
Gough (1979) expanded on this, suggesting that the welfare state has a dual role. On one hand, it reflects working-class efforts to challenge capitalism. On the other hand, it fails to adapt to changing economic and political circumstances. For example, he argued that state education and healthcare prepare workers for jobs and keep them healthy for work, ultimately benefiting capitalism.
This analysis suggests that the welfare state shapes citizens to meet the needs of capitalism. Even the gains achieved by the working class are often concessions granted by the political right, which supports free-market capitalism (Wall, 2011).
Contradictions in Welfare: Accumulation vs. Legitimation
Marxist analysis highlights contradictions in the welfare state. O’Connor (1973) described these as the “accumulation” and “legitimation” functions. On one hand, welfare supports the market by allowing capitalism to grow and accumulate wealth. On the other hand, it legitimizes capitalism by providing social protections for citizens.
However, these goals often conflict. For example, during economic crises like the 1970s downturn, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, governments must balance these functions. Supporting accumulation often means cutting welfare spending, while legitimation may require additional welfare support during crises. For instance, governments increased welfare support during the COVID-19 pandemic, but these measures may lead to future budget cuts.
Ultimately, Marxists argue that the welfare state is both contradictory and unstable. It cannot fully resolve the tensions between supporting capitalism and protecting citizens.
Post-Marxism and the Evolving Critique of Capitalism
The Marxist critique of welfare has been more influential than calls for communist revolution, especially as modern capitalist societies have evolved. Changes in production, class structures, and political systems have made Marx’s ideas seem less relevant to some.
This has led to the development of post-Marxism or neo-Marxism. These perspectives adapt Marxist ideas to account for modern realities. For example, the workforce is now more divided, with many people unemployed or in insecure jobs. This makes the traditional role of the working class in overthrowing capitalism less feasible. Instead, post-Marxists suggest that future change will focus less on industrial production and more on broader societal shifts in a post-industrial economy.
Despite these changes, Marxist critiques of the welfare state remain relevant. They highlight how welfare systems fail to address the deeper problems of capitalism. This ensures that Marxist ideas still appeal to those on the left who seek alternatives to capitalism and welfare as it exists today.
Signposting
This material is mainly relevant to the sociology of work and welfare.
The Middle Way is a balanced ideological approach to social and economic policy, combining elements of Conservatism, Liberalism, and Labour. Originating from Harold Macmillan’s vision, it promotes state-market partnerships and reluctant collectivism. Its evolution through neoliberalism and the Third Way continues to influence contemporary governance and welfare debates in society.
The Middle Way: An Overview
The Middle Way refers to a balanced ideological approach to social and economic policy that bridges the divide between traditional Conservative, Liberal, and Labour ideologies.
The term originates from Harold Macmillan’s 1938 book, The Middle Way, where he outlined a vision for governance that embraced collective welfare without abandoning market principles. Macmillan’s perspective gained prominence during his tenure as Prime Minister in the 1950s and later became a key framework for analyzing post-war British politics.
George and Wilding (1994) expanded on the term to describe a political perspective that avoided the extremes of both laissez-faire capitalism and outright socialism. This approach had roots in the cross-party consensus on welfare and economic planning that characterized the post-World War II settlement in Britain.
Historical Foundations of the Middle Way
Post-War Consensus and Butskellism
A central feature of the Middle Way was the post-war consensus on the role of the state in welfare and economic development. Politicians like R.A.B. Butler and Hugh Gaitskell represented this consensus, leading to the term Butskellism. This approach combined Conservative pragmatism with Labour’s commitment to social justice.
Butler’s 1944 Education Act and the broader reforms inspired by the Beveridge Report were emblematic of this ideological middle ground. These policies sought to create a welfare state that would ensure minimum living standards, universal access to education, and a safety net for vulnerable populations.
Influence of Keynes and Beveridge
Keynes and Beveridge, both Liberal thinkers, were instrumental in shaping the ideological foundations of the Middle Way. Keynes argued for state intervention to stabilize markets and prevent economic crises, emphasizing that unchecked capitalism could undermine both prosperity and social cohesion.
Beveridge, in his landmark reports of 1942 and 1948, laid the groundwork for the welfare state. He envisioned a mixed economy of welfare where state provision complemented voluntary and private sector contributions, ensuring that no citizen was left without basic protections.
Core Principles of the Middle Way
State and Market Partnership
The Middle Way champions a pragmatic partnership between the state and the market. Unlike the New Right, which prioritizes market solutions, Middle Way thinkers see state intervention as a necessary tool for economic stability and social welfare.
Pragmatism over Ideology: State action is justified where it delivers practical benefits, not as an ideological alternative to capitalism.
Mixed Economy of Welfare: The state works alongside private and voluntary sectors to provide services, avoiding monopolistic control.
Reluctant Collectivism
A defining feature of the Middle Way is reluctant collectivism, where collective action is supported only when necessary. Advocates acknowledge the limitations of markets in addressing social issues but remain cautious about over-reliance on state control. For instance:
Economic Stability: State interventions are designed to support capitalist growth while addressing social disparities.
Social Protection: The state steps in to ensure that basic needs are met, particularly in areas where the market fails to provide adequate solutions.
The Middle Way in Practice
Economic Growth and Social Welfare
Middle Way theorists argue that economic growth and social welfare are interdependent. For example, Keynes highlighted that a society plagued by inequality and instability would struggle to achieve sustainable economic growth. Similarly, Beveridge believed that addressing social problems like poverty and unemployment was essential for maintaining a productive and cohesive society.
Welfare Without State Monopolies
Beveridge’s vision included a mixed economy of welfare, where the state played a key role but did not monopolize service provision. This approach allowed for greater flexibility and innovation while ensuring universal access to essential services.
Evolution of the Middle Way
Neoliberal Shifts in the 1980s
The rise of neoliberal economics in the 1980s, championed by figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, challenged the principles of the Middle Way. Neoliberalism prioritized market deregulation, privatization, and reduced state intervention, shifting the political landscape.
However, even in this era, many European countries, such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands, maintained elements of the Middle Way by using welfare policies to support economic growth. Welfare systems were reframed as tools for enhancing workforce productivity and competitiveness rather than merely mitigating market failures.
The Third Way (1990s)
In the 1990s, political leaders such as Tony Blair (UK), Gerhard Schröder (Germany), and Bill Clinton (US) adapted Middle Way principles under the banner of the Third Way.
This approach sought to reconcile neoliberal economic policies with a commitment to social justice:
Equality of Opportunity: Policies aimed to reduce barriers to success while accepting some level of inequality as a natural outcome of meritocracy.
Individual Empowerment: Emphasized self-reliance and personal responsibility, supported by state interventions to ensure access to opportunities.
Social Mobility: Focused on creating pathways for upward mobility through education, skills development, and targeted welfare reforms.
The Third Way balanced market freedoms with state support, blending neoliberal and collectivist ideas into a modern centrist framework.
Debates and Critiques
Neoliberal Influence
Critics argue that the Third Way marked a departure from traditional Middle Way principles, aligning more closely with neoliberalism. For instance, some policies under Blair and Clinton emphasized market-based solutions at the expense of collective welfare.
Balancing Inequality and Cohesion
The Middle Way’s acceptance of some inequalities has also been contentious. While it promotes reducing gross disparities to foster social cohesion, it does not advocate for the radical redistribution seen in social democratic ideologies.
Conclusion
The Middle Way represents a pragmatic approach to governance, balancing state intervention and market freedoms to address social and economic challenges. Its core principles of partnership, reluctant collectivism, and mixed welfare provision have influenced post-war politics and continue to shape centrist ideologies worldwide.
While its evolution through the Third Way and other modern adaptations has sparked debate, the Middle Way remains a significant framework for understanding how societies navigate the tensions between collective welfare and individual freedom.
Relevance to A-level sociology
This material is mainly relevant to the sociology of welfare.
Neoliberals critique the welfare state for fostering dependency and inefficiency, hindering market mechanisms, and requiring costly taxation. They argue that it creates monopolies and political challenges in its reduction. Despite recognizing a minimal safety net’s necessity, neoliberals advocate for limited state intervention, promoting individual self-reliance and market solutions instead.
Neoliberals dislike the welfare state and welfare spending for at least five main reasons:
The welfare state creates a dependency culture. People become dependent on benefits and less self-reliant.
Welfare spending is inefficient. Centralised systems can’t accurately assess what people’s needs are, only the free-market can.
Public spending on welfare requires taxation. This reduces money for investment and innovation in the private sector.
The welfare state interferes with market mechanisms. Public spending on health and housing can create monopolies. This prevents markets from functioning properly and prevents any supposed benefits from emerging.
Once established. the welfare state is difficult to get rid of. Millions of people end up working for it and reducing it in size is a political problem.
This post explores the context of neoliberal approaches to social welfare and then looks at some of the above critiques of the welfare state in more depth.
The Revival of Neoliberalism in the 1970s and 1980s
In the 1970s and 1980s, pro-market, anti-state ideologies experienced a significant revival, influencing political landscapes in the United Kingdom, the United States, and beyond. In the UK, this resurgence aligned with the policies of the Conservative governments under Margaret Thatcher.
This movement, often referred to as the New Right, marked the adaptation of classical 19th-century laissez-faire liberalism to meet the challenges of late-20th-century circumstances. The New Right is synonymous with neoliberalism or market liberalism, which centers on reducing state intervention and promoting market mechanisms.
Key Theorists: Hayek and Friedman
Neoliberal thought owes much to the work of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Hayek consistently argued that there was an irreconcilable contradiction between market operations and state intervention. He believed that state involvement in economic or social policies would lead to market dysfunction, economic inefficiency, and even totalitarianism, ultimately eroding individual freedoms.
Milton Friedman shared Hayek’s preference for markets over state intervention. He emphasized that left to their own devices, markets would naturally protect individual interests. According to Friedman, consumer sovereignty ensures that producers adapt their services to meet consumer needs. He argued that state intervention distorts this natural balance, leading to inefficiencies and, ultimately, economic collapse that harms both the state and individuals.
The Role of Think Tanks in Promoting Neoliberal Ideas
In the UK, neoliberal ideas were championed by think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). Although these ideas were initially a minority voice opposing the post-war welfare consensus, they gained traction during the economic crises of the 1970s. Rising inflation, unemployment, and the collapse of the global economy provided fertile ground for neoliberal critiques of state intervention.
The Centre for Policy Studies, founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, along with the Adam Smith Institute, amplified these arguments. These think tanks advanced the position that extensive state intervention, including in welfare services, was inherently flawed. They argued that state policies were economically inefficient, ideologically misguided, and politically unmanageable.The Institute for Economic Affairs: at least it is open about its bias.
Economic Critiques of the Welfare State
Neoliberals view the welfare state as undesirable because it interferes with market mechanisms. This interference, referred to by Adam Smith as the “invisible hand,” disrupts the efficient functioning of markets. Critics argue that state monopolies, such as public housing, stifle competition and prevent the market’s claimed benefits from materializing.
Additionally, state intervention is said to drain private market wealth and reduce investment due to the fiscal demands of expanding welfare programs. According to neoliberal theorists, this dynamic leads to economic stagnation and recession. Stabilizing the economy, they argue, requires cutting public expenditure and reducing the scope of the state. These ideas influenced austerity policies implemented in the UK from 2011 to 2015 and continued under subsequent Conservative governments until 2018.
Dependency Culture and Perverse Incentives
Central to neoliberal critiques of the welfare state is the idea that it creates a dependency culture. This argument posits that state provision discourages individuals from taking responsibility for their welfare needs, trapping them in reliance on government support. Charles Murray popularized this concept in the 1980s, describing the issue as one of “perverse incentives.”
Murray argued that social security benefits guaranteed a basic standard of living, making reliance on welfare more attractive than employment. This issue is particularly pronounced with means-tested benefits, where individuals lose entitlement as their income increases, creating a poverty trap. This perspective has been echoed by figures like British MP Rhodes Boyson, who claimed that the welfare state “saps the collective moral fibre of our people as a nation.”
Political Critiques: Public Choice Theory and the Ratchet Effect
Neoliberals also criticize the welfare state through the lens of public choice theory, developed by the Virginia School of thought. This theory applies microeconomic principles to political behavior, assuming that all political actors are motivated by self-interest.
According to this theory, welfare states inevitably face pressure from various social groups and bureaucrats to expand benefits, as welfare expansion strengthens political power and bureaucratic influence. This dynamic leads to the “ratchet effect,” where welfare spending continually increases but cannot be reduced without significant political backlash. Consequently, welfare states are seen as financially unsustainable and politically uncontrollable.
Neoliberal Views on State Welfare: Impractical and Ineffective
Neoliberals argue that state welfare provision is impractical, as it assumes that politicians and bureaucrats can accurately assess and meet the diverse needs of society. They contend that such centralized systems often fail to address individual requirements, leading to inefficiencies and poorly tailored services.
Critics further argue that standardized welfare services do not meet the real needs of most people and often require recipients to rely on private adaptations. For neoliberals, the most effective solutions lie in minimizing state involvement and allowing markets to operate freely.
The Pragmatic Role of the Welfare State
Despite their criticisms, many neoliberals acknowledge that the complete elimination of the welfare state is neither practical nor politically feasible. Hayek, for example, accepted that the state might play a residual role in providing for individuals who cannot support themselves through the market. Similarly, Milton Friedman proposed an alternative approach, suggesting a universal annual grant to enable individuals to purchase welfare services independently.
For many New Right advocates, a minimal “safety net” remains necessary to address basic welfare needs. However, they stress that this should be designed to encourage self-reliance and reduce long-term dependency on state support.
Neoliberalism as a Global Economic Doctrine
Neoliberal economics has become a globally dominant ideology, often supported by organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, its influence varies across nations. Scholars like Ellison (2006) and Deacon (2011) have highlighted the inconsistencies in its application and impact.
As Greer (2018) notes, neoliberal ideas often adapt to existing national political and economic contexts, creating hybrid models. In the UK, the New Right reflects this blending of free-market principles with the ideological positions of the Conservative Party.
The Thatcher Era: Ideological Tensions and Political Realities
During Margaret Thatcher’s tenure as Prime Minister, the Conservative government faced internal and external pressures to retain universal state services. As a result, reforms focused on restructuring welfare management and encouraging private sector involvement, rather than dismantling state services entirely.
This period underscores the the gap between ideological perspectives and political practices. It also highlights the ongoing presence of alternative ideological views, even when neoliberalism appears dominant.
Relevance to A-level sociology
This material is mainly relevant to the Work, Poverty and Welfare module, which is usually taught in the first year of study.
Risk society, a concept by Ulrich Beck, describes modern societies where technological advancements create unprecedented risks and uncertainties. This shift from viewing science as progress to recognizing its dangers necessitates new societal responses. Key characteristics include global, incalculable damage, irreversible consequences, and extensive reach, challenging traditional risk management methods.
Risk society refers to modern societies in which technological developments such as nuclear power and biotechnology create new risks and uncertainties.
Risk society is another way of characteristing postmodern or late modern society. The term was developed by sociologist Ulrich Beck in the mid 1980s to describe the way new technologies were changing our experience of risk.
in modern society/ modernity, science and technology were generally seen as delivering social progress and improving our lives.
In Risk Society, science and technology are increasingly viewed as having introduced problems of development and global risks. Nuclear Power and Artificial Intelligence are two excellent examples of this.
Nothing appears fixed anymore, and contradictions emerge between scientists and policymakers about the appropriate risk response.
Society’s dangers have shifted focus
Social structures have always faced dangers. Historically, these have usually been “natural” in origin. In recent years, science, technology, and industry have created prosperity but have also brought about new dangers (for example, those posed by the production of nuclear power), which have focused the thoughts of individuals and societies on a quest for safety and the idea of calculable risk.
In the mid-1980s, the German sociologist Ulrich Beck claimed that our relationship to society and its institutions had changed profoundly over the past decades, and that this required a new way of thinking about risk. Beck argues that social life is progressing from a first stage of modernity to an emergent second, or “reflexive,” stage. This is shaped by an awareness that control of—and mastery over—nature and society may be impossible. This awareness may itself lead to disenchantment with existing social structures as providers of safety and reassurance.
The emergence of a global “risk society”
A key characteristic of this new stage is the emergence of a global “risk society,” by which Beck means that individuals, groups, governments, and corporations are increasingly concerned about the production, dissemination, and experience of risk. We now have to confront problems that previous generations could not imagine, and this requires new societal responses.
In his earlier work, Beck points in particular to the risks posed by nuclear energy, the chemical industry, and biotechnology. He says that the application of science and technology to meet human needs has reached a critical point, creating risks that are no longer calculable or manageable by existing societal frameworks.
Contextual milestones in the development of “risk society”
KEY DATES
1968: The Club of Rome think tank is founded and in 1972 publishes a report, The Limits to Growth, which identifies the risk posed by excessive population growth.
1984: U.S. sociologist Charles Perrow publishes Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies.
1999: U.S. sociologist Barry Glassner draws on Ulrich Beck’s concept of risk in The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things.
2001: The 9/11 attacks on the USA lead to worldwide changes in the perception of the risks posed by international terrorist organisations.
Loss of respect for institutions and experts creates uncertainty and doubt
Beck observes that we begin to fear that we are living in a world that is beyond controllability.
Our advances have not only opened up new possibilities but have also introduced dangers on an unprecedented scale. Should such a catastrophe occur, the consequences would be so grave that it would be almost impossible to contain its impact or to return society to the way things were before.
The nature of risk in modern society
Beck identifies three significant characteristics of risk:
Global, incalculable damage: Accidents may cause damage that cannot be compensated for, as traditional mechanisms like insurance no longer work.
Irreversible exclusion of precautionary measures: We cannot return conditions to the way they were prior to the accident.
No limit in space and time: Accidents are unpredictable, can be felt across national borders, and impose their effects over long periods of time.
In terms of dealing with the possibility or likelihood of such calamities happening in the future, traditional methods of risk calculation have become obsolete in relation to many of the new kinds of risks that concern us in the 21st century, such as health pandemics, nuclear meltdowns, or genetically modified foodstuffs.
Real and virtual risk
Beck identifies a strange ambiguity in how society understands risks. On the one hand, they are real—they exist as objective, latent threats at the heart of scientific and technological progress. They cannot be ignored, even if authorities try to pretend they do not exist. At the same time, however, risks are also virtual; that is, they represent current anxieties about events that have yet to—or may never—happen.
Nonetheless, it is the apparent threat posed by these risks, the anticipation of disaster, which ushers in new challenges to the power of scientists, corporations, and governments. Beck observes that no one is an expert on questions of risk, not even the experts themselves. The intrinsic complexity of many risks means that scientists often cannot agree on questions of likelihood, possible severity, or how to set up proper safety procedures.
In fact, in the public mind, it is these same experts—in their manipulation of genes or splitting of atomic nuclei—who may have created the risks. However, while there is public scepticism about scientists, Beck notes that they are nevertheless essential in the risk society. Precisely because we cannot feel, hear, smell, or see the risks that we face, we need these experts to help measure, calculate, and make sense of them for us.
Making risks meaningful
Beck notes the important role played by so-called “new social movements” in raising public awareness of risk. For instance, Greenpeace, an independent organisation committed to environmental protection, runs many high-profile publicity campaigns to draw attention to the environmental risks both caused and downplayed by corporations and governments.
The media feed on public anxieties about risk, claims Beck. To increase sales, news providers latch on to stories of corporate or institutional failures to adequately manage risk or sensationalist stories of the hidden threats posed by technological developments.
While ultimately self-serving, Beck sees this as a positive thing because it helps develop public consciousness about risks and promote open debate. The media make risks visible and meaningful for people by giving abstract risks a powerful symbolic form.
Responses to risk
Beck identifies three main responses to contemporary risks:
Denial: Ignoring or minimising risks.
Apathy: Acknowledging risks but failing to act.
Transformation: Taking global action to live positively under the shadow of risk.
Risk and inequality
In earlier times, wealthier individuals could shield themselves from risks, but modern risks, such as climate change, transcend boundaries of wealth, space, and time. For example, while outsourcing industrial production to developing nations might reduce immediate risks for wealthier countries, environmental consequences ultimately “boomerang” back.
Globalised fears and hopes
Beck argues that global risks require global responses. He highlights three positive outcomes:
Collective responses to catastrophic risks.
Increased media attention to how disasters disproportionately affect the poor.
Dialogue between diverse groups, such as environmental activists and businesses, to address common threats.
Risk and reward: Positive possibilities
While Beck’s focus on risk may seem bleak, he underscores the constructive potential of risk awareness. Responses to global risks can lead to innovative solutions and societal transformation. For instance, fears about acid rain and global warming led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
Signposting: Relevance to A-level sociology
The risk society theory is best characterised as a late modern social theory. It is part of the theories and methods module, usually taught as part of the second year of A-level sociology.
Jeffrey Weeks (1945–) is a significant British writer on sexuality, viewing it as a social construct shaped by ideologies rather than just biological factors. His research emphasizes how structures like sexology, marriage, and law historically marginalized homosexuality, while promoting heterosexuality as the norm, impacting societal perceptions and personal identities.
Jeffrey Weeks (1945–) is arguably the most influential British writer on sexuality. His work offers a detailed historical account of how sexuality has been shaped and regulated by society. He sees sexuality not so much as rooted in the body, but as a social construct that is ideologically determined.
Inspired by the work of British sociologist Mary McIntosh, he argues that industrialisation and urbanisation consolidated gender divisions and increased the stigma of male same-sex relations. Weeks examines how Victorian society used the new “sciences” of psychology and sexology (the study of sexuality) to enforce its views.
Sex, Politics and Society (1981). A key text by Weeks.
The social construction of sexuality
Weeks argued that sexuality is as much about beliefs and ideologies as about the physical body.
Three key beliefs and ideologies which construct sexuality are:
Sexology invents the categories “homosexual” and “heterosexual.”
Marriage is promoted as necessary for a healthy and stable society.
The Law regulates sexuality by deciding who can do what.
Sexology (the study of sexuality), marriage and the law construct homosexuality as abnormal, while heterosexuality is constructed as normal.
Sexuality as Social Control
Male homosexuality was viewed as a perversion and, increasingly, as a social problem, leading to tighter legal and social control. The 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act, for example, broadened and redefined the legal definition of homosexual acts. This construction of homosexuality as abnormal, along with essentialist ideas of femininity and masculinity, served to support the belief that heterosexuality was normal and the only legitimate form of sexual behaviour.
For example, Oscar Wilde was tried and convicted in the late 19th century of “gross indecency” with other men. The trials of the Irish writer helped construct homosexuality as a social problem.
Weeks observed that studies of sexuality that claimed to be scientific were often undertaken by wealthy amateurs to pass sentences on homosexuals. The growing interest in classifying sexuality assumed that women were naturally sexually passive and men were naturally sexually active, without having any evidence for such assumptions. Anything contrary to these “essentialist” views (that sexuality reflects biology) was often considered abnormal. The new sciences thus firmly upheld existing patriarchal ideas.
Marriage and sexuality
Weeks observed an increasing tendency to view the institution of marriage as essential to maintaining a stable, “healthy” society. There was also, therefore, a concern to regulate men’s “natural” lustfulness by steering them towards marriage.
At the same time, marriage was promoted as the norm, and essentialist ideas about who might be homosexual had fully criminalised previously accepted behaviour. For the first time in history, the law identified a new type of people: “homosexuals”. The category “heterosexuality” was invented soon after. Many of the studies on sexuality were influenced by the teachings of the Christian Church.
Sexuality and Social Control
It is possible, Weeks suggests, to see this defining of sexuality as both a social construction and a form of social control. The law can decide who is allowed to marry, adopt children, have sex, and at what age. Religion can instruct society that any sex that does not lead to procreation is sinful.
Cultural ideals about who should have sex, and who should not, can have a significant negative impact. For example, there has been a notable rise in sexually transmitted diseases among the over-50s in the UK, partly because the idea that sex between older people is, among other things, distasteful has led to fewer older people seeking medical advice.
Jeffrey Weeks: Background
The social historian Jeffrey Weeks was born in Rhondda, Wales, UK, in 1945. His work has been influenced by his early participation as a gay rights activist in the Gay Liberation Front (GLF). Weeks was a founding member and editor of the journal Gay Left, and his work continues to be informed by ideas from lesbian and gay politics, socialism, and feminism. He has published over 20 books and numerous articles on sexuality and intimate life and is currently a research professor at the Weeks Centre for Social and Policy Research at South Bank University in London, England. In 2012, he was awarded an OBE for his services to social science.
The Social Construction of Sexuality: Key Dates:
1885 The Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed in the UK, recriminalising male homosexuality and strengthening the laws against prostitution.
1968 An essay by British sociologist Mary McIntosh, “The Homosexual Role”, helps promote the view that sexuality is socially not biologically determined.
1976 The History of Sexuality: Volume I, by French philosopher Michel Foucault, examines the role of “experts” in the classification of sexuality.
2002 Same-sex couples are legally entitled to adopt in the UK.
2001 Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments
Relevance to A-level sociology
Jeffrey Weeks’ work is most relevant to the sociology of culture and identity. It highlights how key social institutions have worked to marginalise gay identities and repress the free expression of sexuality, simply by normalising heterosexuality.
His work is also relevant to families and households, his work is a useful addition to criticisms of marriage as an institution, adding to Feminist ideas that not only has this institution oppressed women historically, but also anyone who isn’t heterosexual.
Ethnomethodology, established by Harold Garfinkel in the 1960s, investigates how individuals construct social order through everyday interactions. It emphasizes that social order is a collective fiction, maintained by shared practices. Through breaching experiments, it reveals hidden social norms, critiquing traditional sociology for overlooking the subjective methods that shape social reality.
Ethnomethodology, developed in the 1960s by Harold Garfinkel, explores how people use everyday methods to make sense of and organize their social world. The term itself means “the study of the methods people use,” focusing on how social order is constructed rather than assuming it naturally exists.
Ethnomethodology focuses on understanding the “how” of social life: how people create, interpret, and maintain a sense of order in their everyday lives. Instead of assuming that social structures (like institutions or norms) inherently exist, ethnomethodology investigates how people’s actions make these structures seem real.
Ethnomethodology: Key Points
Social Order is a fiction. Social Order Isn’t Fixed: Social order is actively created and maintained by individuals through shared practices and assumptions.
Social patterns are assumed, not proven: Through the ‘documentary method’, people fit details into broader patterns they expect to see, rather than treating each situation as unique. People basically see what they want to see in social interactions, and interpret external events in such a way that confirms their already existing view of the world.
The job of ethnomethodology is to document the micro-processes through which individuals maintain social fictions.
Ethnomethodology is well known for its ‘breaching experiments’. Here people deliberately break social norms to highlight the hidden rules that govern everyday life.
Ethnomethodology criticised structural sociologists for assuming there was such a thing as an external social structure which constrained individuals.
The Origins of Ethnomethodology
In 1967 Harold Garfinkel first coined the term ‘ethnomethodology.’ Roughly translated, ethnomethodology means a study of the methods people use. It is concerned with the methods used by people (or ‘members,’ as ethnomethodologists refer to them) to construct, account for and give meaning to their social world.
Many of the concerns of ethnomethodology have reflected the type of approach developed by Schutz. Schutz, however, did not carry out detailed research into social life; he merely speculated about the nature of society. Ethnomethodologists have applied phenomenological ideas in carrying out research.
Social Order as a Fiction
Ethnomethodologists follow Schutz in believing there is no real social order, as other sociological perspectives assume. Social life appears orderly to members of society only because members actively engage in making sense of social life. Societies have regular and ordered patterns only because members perceive them in this way.
Social order, therefore, becomes a convenient fiction — an appearance of order constructed by members of society. This appearance allows the social world to be described and explained, and so make knowable, reasonable, understandable, and accountable to its members. It is made accountable in the sense that members of society become able to provide descriptions and explanations of their own actions, and of the society around them, which are reasonable and acceptable to themselves and others. Thus, in Atkinson’s study of suicide, coroners were able to justify and explain their actions to themselves and to others in terms of the common-sense ways they went about reaching a verdict.
Two examples can be used to illustrate social order as a fiction
Example 1: Queuing (Standing in Line)
When people queue at a bus stop, they unconsciously follow unwritten rules about where to stand, who goes first, and how to behave. There’s no formal law enforcing this behaviour—it’s just a shared understanding.
If someone jumps the queue, others might protest, demonstrating that the “order” is upheld by shared expectations. Without these shared expectations, the queue would dissolve into chaos.
Example 2: Polite Conversations
In conversations, people take turns speaking and listening. If someone interrupts frequently, it disrupts the “order” of the interaction. This turn-taking system is a shared method that participants use to keep the conversation understandable and respectful.
The Documentary Method: How individuals maintain the fiction of social order
Garfinkel (1984) argued that members employ the ‘documentary method’ to make sense of and account for the social world, and to give it an appearance of order. This method consists of selecting certain aspects of the infinite number of features contained in any situation or context, defining them in a particular way, and treating them as evidence of an underlying pattern. The process is then reversed, and particular instances of action and behaviour are used as evidence for the existence of the pattern. In Garfinkel’s words, the documentary method:
“consists of treating an actual appearance as ‘the document of’, as ‘pointing to’, as ‘standing on behalf of’ a presupposed underlying pattern. Not only is the underlying pattern derived from the individual documentary evidences, but the individual documentary evidences, in their turn, are interpreted on the basis of ‘what is known’ about the underlying pattern. Each is used to elaborate the other.”
Ethnomethodology involves an in-depth look at daily life
An Experiment in Counselling
Garfinkel aimed to demonstrate the documentary method and its reflexive nature by an experiment conducted in a university department of psychiatry. Students were invited to take part in what was described as a new form of psychotherapy. They were asked to summarize a personal problem on which they wanted advice and then ask a counsellor a series of questions.
The counsellor sat in an adjoining room, and the student and the counsellor could not see each other and communicated via an intercom. The counsellor was told to give an answer of either ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Unknown to the student, the ‘counsellor’ was not a counsellor, and the answers received were evenly divided between ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ their sequence being predetermined in accordance with a table of random numbers.
In one case, a student was worried about his relationship with his girlfriend. He was Jewish and she was Catholic, and he was worried about his parents’ reaction to the relationship and the problems that might result from marriage and children. His questions related to these concerns. Despite the fact that the answers he received were random and given without reference to the content of questions, and sometimes contradicted previous answers, the student found them helpful, reasonable, and sensible. The other students in the experiment made similar assessments of the counselling sessions.Those receiving counselling interpreted random responses as being helpful.
Indexicality
This experiment can also be used to illustrate the idea of ‘indexicality,’ a central concept developed by Garfinkel and other ethnomethodologists. Indexicality means that the sense of any object or activity is derived from its context — it is ‘indexed’ in a particular situation. As a result, any interpretation, explanation or account made by members in their everyday lives is made with reference to particular circumstances and situations.
Thus, the students’ sense of the counsellor’s answers was derived from the context of each moment. From the setting — a psychiatry department — and the information they had been given about the task, the answers were meaningful to them, and they did their best to apply what they had been told. In this way, they understood the counsellor’s responses within the context of limited answers they had received from fellow students in a coffee bar.Individuals give meaning to social situations depending on the context
Breaching Experiments
Harold Garfinkel conducted “breaching experiments” where he deliberately broke social norms to see how people reacted. He also encouraged other members of society to do the same:
Example: A student went home and acted like a guest in their own house, asking their parents formal questions like “May I sit here?”
Reaction: The parents were confused and upset, showing how much they relied on unspoken assumptions (e.g., that family members behave informally with each other).
These experiments highlight the fragile, constructed nature of social order—when the shared “rules” are broken, the order collapses.
Ethnomethodology and Mainstream Sociology
Garfinkel (1984, first published 1967) argued that mainstream sociology has typically portrayed people as ‘cultural dopes’ who simply act out the standardized directives provided by the culture of their society. Garfinkel stated: “By ‘cultural dope’ I refer to the man-in-the-sociologist’s-society who produces the stable features of society by acting in compliance with the preestablished and legitimate alternatives of action that the common culture provides.”
In the place of the ‘cultural dope,’ the ethnomethodologist pictures the skilled member who is constantly attending to the particular, indexical aspects of situations, giving them meaning, making them knowable, communicating this knowledge to others and constructing a sense and appearance of order. From this perspective, members construct and accomplish their own social world rather than being shaped by it.
The Nature of Social Reality
Ethnomethodologists are highly critical of other branches of sociology. They argue that ‘conventional’ sociologists have misunderstood the nature of social reality. They have treated the social world as if it has an objective reality that is independent of members’ accounts and interpretations.
They have regarded aspects of the social world such as suicide and crime as facts with an existence of their own. They have then attempted to provide explanations for these ‘facts.’
By contrast, ethnomethodologists argue that the social world consists of nothing more than the meanings, interpretations, and accounts of its members. The job of the sociologist is therefore to explain the methods and accounting procedures that members employ to construct their social world. According to ethnomethodologists, this is the very job that mainstream sociology has failed to do.Ethnomethodology: the world is more chaotic than we think
Criticisms of Ethnomethodology
Alvin Gouldner (1971) poured scorn upon ethnomethodology for dealing with trivial aspects of social life, and for revealing things that everybody knows already. He gave an example of the type of experiment advocated by Garfinkel. An ethnomethodologist might release chickens in a town centre during the rush hour, stand back and observe as traffic was held up and crowds gathered to watch and laugh at police officers chasing the chickens.
Gouldner goes on to explain that Garfinkel might say that the community has now learned the importance of the hitherto unnoticed rule at the basis of everyday life: one does not pursue chickens in the street in the midst of the rush hour.
More seriously, critics have argued that the members who populate the kind of society portrayed by ethnomethodologists appear to lack any motives and goals. As Anthony Giddens (1977) remarked, there is little reference to “the pursuance of practical goals or interests.” What, for example, motivated the students in Garfinkel’s counselling experiment?
Signposting
This is one of the main sociological theories, not so much part of A-level sociology, more likely to be relevant to undergraduate degree level sociology.
The Left is gradually losing its longstanding support among ethnic minority voters. In the 2024 general election, Labour won less than half of the non-white vote for the first time ever, experiencing a roughly 10% drop compared to its share in 2020. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party achieved some of its best results in areas with large Hindu populations.
A similar trend is occurring in the United States, where many non-white voters are shifting their support to the Republicans. U.S. polls predict a comparable 10% swing toward the Republicans in the 2024 elections.
This shift isn’t entirely surprising when examining public opinion surveys from recent years.
A recent study found that 22% of ethnic minority Britons prioritize keeping taxes low, a figure that aligns closely with white Tory voters. Ethnic minorities also place less emphasis on social justice issues compared to white Labour voters.
U.S. polls reveal that on issues such as immigration, patriotism, and meritocracy, the average Black or Hispanic voter is significantly more conservative than the average white liberal voter.
However, it is essential not to overstate the extent of this shift to the right among ethnic minorities.
For instance, the top three policy issues among white voters in Britain are the NHS, economic growth, and immigration, in that order. In contrast, ethnic minority voters prioritize economic growth, the NHS, and then poverty and inequality.
Within ethnic minority groups, there is also variation. British Indian and British Chinese voters, for example, hold the most right-leaning economic views among these groups.
It’s also noteworthy that Labour lost significant support among British Muslims due to its stance on Israel’s actions in Palestine. Many of these voters turned to the Green Party or Independent candidates in the 2024 election.
Why are ethnic minorities less likely to cote for Labour?
These voting patterns reflect broader social shifts in the life chances of ethnic minorities. As the inequality gap between ethnic minorities and the white average narrows, we might expect more ethnic minority voters to align with the Conservatives.
However, factors such as the recent conflict in Gaza show that cultural and religious identities also play a significant role, independent of economic status.
A 2024 study by UCL’s Center for Longitudinal Studies reveals that today’s older adults are less healthy than previous generations, facing increased risks of cancer, heart disease, and disabilities. This generational health decline highlights the need for public health interventions to improve overall health and address the challenges of an ageing population.
Increases in many illnesses and ailments are often attributed to our longer lifespans. The older we are, the more likely we are to suffer from degenerative diseases. So, as life expectancy rises, the number of people with conditions like arthritis, cancer, and heart disease also grows.
However, a new study has found that today’s older people are simply less healthy than those in earlier generations. This research was published in 2024 by UCL’s Center for Longitudinal Studies.
Data analysis of more than 100,000 people across seven generations revealed that those born in the late 1940s and 1950s were about 150% more likely to suffer from cancer, lung disease, and heart problems in their 50s and 60s compared to those born before the Second World War at the same age.
Older people today are also equally or more likely to struggle with basic tasks like walking short distances. Those born after 1945 face a higher risk of chronic illness and disability than their predecessors.
Gen X is more likely to be obese, have diabetes, and experience poor mental health compared to baby boomers.
Laura Gimeno of UCL, one of the researchers involved in this study, notes that this reflects a generational health decline.
The Generational Health Decline: Causes and Consequences
This study reminds us that the ageing population is not inherently problematic. The real issue is the decline in public health across all ages. Older people 50 years ago were healthier than older people today.
This suggests that there are social policy interventions we could implement to improve the health of older adults.
While I’m not certain what these specific measures might be, stricter regulations on the fast food and junk food industries, improved working conditions, and expanded mental health support services could be effective first steps.
Ageing does not have to come with as many health-related issues as it currently does. But to address this, we must collectively take action. Without intervention, an ageing population will require more resources for care due to poorer health outcomes.
And beyond practical considerations, it’s simply better for everyone to live healthy lives for as long as possible!
Relevance to A-level sociology
This material is relevant to the families and households module. It suggests that an ageing population is not an inherent problem.
It is also a good example of a longitudinal study as it compares data over time from different cohorts.
The Grenfell report reveals that the avoidable deaths of 54 adults and 18 children resulted from systematic failures by various parties responsible for building safety. A kitchen fire ignited due to a faulty fridge-freezer, and the use of combustible cladding exacerbated the fire’s rapid spread. Budget constraints prioritized profit over safety, highlighting the consequences of neoliberal policies.
The deaths of 54 adults and 18 children in the Grenfell Tower fire were avoidable, according to the recent Grenfell report.
Those who died were failed over many years and in numerous ways by those responsible for the safety of the building.
The fire started in one flat due to a malfunctioning fridge-freezer. The first fire engine arrived by 00:59, and the initial kitchen fire was extinguished by 1:21. However, by that time, the fire had spread outside through the kitchen window and rapidly engulfed the building, reaching the roof by 1:27. By 4:00, all four sides of the building were ablaze.
The Grenfell Tower Fire: who was responsible…?
The main reason for the fire’s rapid spread was the combustible aluminium composite material used in the cladding during renovations in 2015–16: Reynobond 55 PE, manufactured by Arconic. It consists of two thin sheets of aluminium with a flammable polyethylene core, which burns intensely.
Between the cladding and the concrete wall was a further layer of combustible insulation, which released toxic gas as it burned.
Because the fire spread on the outside of the building, the compartmentalisation designed to prevent the internal spread of fire failed.
The architects, Studio E, initially intended to use non-combustible zinc panels but instead chose the cheaper, combustible materials under pressure from the Tenant Management Organisation, part of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. This decision saved almost £300,000 on a £9.2 million refurbishment.
There was systematic dishonesty from those who sold the cladding—Arconic, Celotex, and Kingspan—all of whom deliberately manipulated testing processes and misled the market about the safety of their products.
The regulators failed as well. The cladding materials were certified by the BBA, a privatised certification body. It was their responsibility to scrutinise the testing procedures more closely.
The central government also failed. Fires involving ACM cladding had occurred in smaller buildings as far back as 1991.
David Cameron’s government, with its neoliberal deregulatory agenda, left safety regulations under-resourced. One junior civil servant was given responsibility for fire safety measures with little oversight.
The architects, Studio E, and the contractors who installed the cladding also bear some responsibility.
Finally, the fire brigade was found to have serious and systematic failings. The control room was overwhelmed, radios failed, the “stay put” order was incorrect, and there was no clear strategy for this particular scenario.
Relevance to A-Level Sociology
This case study highlights the continued relevance of the Marxist perspective on crime, which argues that we should focus on social harms rather than only on criminal acts. In the case of Grenfell, significant harm was done, but not everyone responsible will be held accountable because many of those involved did not technically commit criminal acts.
It also shows that victims of such incidents are more likely to be poor. Fire safety standards were not followed properly due to budget constraints. Grenfell was social housing, and the residents were poorer individuals living in London. The local authority aimed to save money during the renovation, which is why they opted for cheaper, unsafe cladding materials.
This is a strong example of the failures of neoliberal economic policies, especially in showing how deregulation can lead to devastating consequences.
NB: There may still be criminal prosecutions in the future, but it is likely that many people complicit in these failures will escape punishment.
The Office for National Statistics has downgraded its gender identity statistics from the 2021 UK Census. These statistics are no longer ‘official statistics’, they are now just ‘official statistics in development’.
According to the 2021 Census 262 000 people in England and Wales identified as transgender, equivalent to 0.5% of the population.
However, new analysis by Oxford Sociology professor Michael Biggs suggests these statistics may lack validity. His research was recently published in the journal British Sociological Association’s journal Sociology.
Why might the government’s gender identity statistics lack validity…?
The main reason is that some people with poor English may have misunderstood the following question:
“Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth”?
Professor Biggs’ analysis suggests that people with poor English skills are more likely to have answered ‘no’ to this by mistake.
Unusual regional variations
Professor Biggs looked at how the number of reported trans people varied across regions in England and Wales.
Many areas in the top 20 are not well-known trans-friendly areas, but many are well-known as having high proportions of people with poor English.
For example, Newham, Brent, Tower Hamlets, it does seem unusual that these have higher proportions of trans identifying people in them compared to Brighton and Hove, for example.
Professor Biggs thus went on to analyze the relationship between those identifying as transgender and their English language proficiency . His statistical analysis is summarized below:
0.4% of the population who spoke English as their main language identified as transgender
1.5% with English not as their main language identified as transgender
More than 2% of people who didn’t speak English well identified as transgender.
Professor Biggs also looked at the type of trans identity in relation to proficiency in English.
Higher proportions of people with poor English skills identified as being a biological male and identifying as a trans male, or a biological female and identifying as a trans female, or as unspecified gender*.
Professor Biggs takes this as being evidence of people being ‘confused’ about their gender identity. However this is just his interpretation. It is possible to be biologically male and identify as a trans male, for example.
Poor reliability compared to other sources
Professor Biggs further points out that the statistics in the Census on transgender identity are different to other sources.
He cites data from from a petition put together by Reform the Gender Recognition Act, 2021 which had 118 000 signatories, as well as the number of referrals to the Gender Identity Development Services.
According to the former data source 0.75% of people from Brighton and Hove identified as being transgender, compared to only 0.16% of people in Newham. The former is broadly in line with the Census findings, the later is grossly different.
So it seems reasonable to suggest that lack of English is distorting the results on reported transgender identity in the Census
Relevance to A-level sociology
This is an excellent debate that raises serious issues about value freedom. It is important to keep in mind that Professor Biggs has been accused of being transphobic.
However Professor Biggs himself argues that the ONS have failed to be objective themselves. He thinks they have bowed to pressure from LBGTQ pressure groups and delayed downgrading their statistics.
You will need to read through Professor Biggs’ research yourself and decide whether you think this is truly objective analysis!
The ONS certainly seems to think his criticism of their statistics has some merit, as they have now downgraded them.
