The Island of Nevis is the most secretive tax haven in the world. Nevis is a solitary volcano in the Caribbean, with a population of just 11, 000, notorious for its involvement in Britain’s biggest ever tax fraud, as well as having been implicated in many other sordid financial scams of modern times, such as when 620, 000 Americans were fleeced out of $220 million in a pay-day loan scam.
Despite its tiny population, Nevis is also home to six domestic banks, one international bank, 18 insurance managers, and dozens of registered law firms. In fact Nevis might well have the highest lawyer to person* ratio on earth.
Nevis is becoming increasingly popular with the world’s rich: since 2012 its financial services sector has grown by a quarter.
Nevis specializes in letting its clients create and register corporations with greater anonymity than almost any other place on planet earth: even the island’s own corporate land registry doesn’t know who owns the corporations registered there.
Companies benefit from further protections: if you suspect a company of having acquired some of its assets illegally, you have to file $100 000 bond with the courts in Nevis before initiating legal proceedings, in order to make sure that no-one makes frivolous claims.
Not that you would have much luck filing a claim against a company registered on the island: Nevis’ regulator holds no information on who owns the companies registered there, or on who owns its companies’ assets.
Then there’s the fact that anyone disclosing financial information without a court order is liable for a $10 000 fine and up to a year in prison. This would serve to put of investigative journalists.
All of this poses a problem for authorities wishing to tackle global crime: if Nevis continues to guarantee anonymity over ownership of assets then there is no way for global crime fighting agencies to trace whether or not those assets have been acquired illegally.
A further problem is that it makes it more difficult for nation states to track down whether large corporations or individuals are dodging their taxes.
Relevance of this case study to A-level sociology
The existence of tax havens demonstrates the absence of global social norms pertaining to tax, and to the relative powerlessness of Nation States to control flows of global capital.
It also suggests support for the Marxist/ World Systems Theory view of globalization. The existence of Tax Havens allows the richest to keep their wealth, perpetuating global inequality. They certainly don’t benefit the global poor!
*some research suggests that ‘lawyer’ and ‘person’ are mutually exclusive categories. Although there’s no actual evidence to back this up.
Sources: The Week July 2018.
This post will also be published to the steem blockchain.
Sociologists use the term ‘religiosity’ to refer to the significance of religion within a society.
There are numerous indicators which sociologists use to measure the degree of ‘religiosity’ within society, such as the strength of religious beliefs, the number of people who actively engage in religious practices, and the amount of power religious institutions have within a society.
“scholars of religion often analyse how faith influences individuals’ experiences, attitudes and values by looking at the three Bs: belonging (identification and membership), behaving (attendance) and believing (in God)
Belonging – this aspect of religiosity is typically measured by how many people are members of religious organisations and actually identify with formal religious institutions.
Behaving – this aspect of religiosity can be measured by the religious activities people actually engage in… such as how often they attend places of religious worship, whether they get married via a religious institution, and how often they pray in private,
Believing – this is the most subjective aspect of religiosity, and can include whether people believe in God, the afterlife, spirits etc…
Problems with measuring ‘religiosity’
Someone’s faith is largely subjective, which makes it very difficult to measure quantitatively.
Changes in religious belief and practice make religiosity difficult to measure…. now we have moved into a postmodern society, which is more individualistic, people are more likely to practice religion privately and individually, and less likely to engage with traditional religious institutions such as the Christian church – but does this shift mean society is necessarily less religious?
Sociologists disagree over how we should define religion, which will influence how religious they perceive a society to be. For example, someone who uses a substantive definition of religion, and says that a religion must involve a belief in God, would probably believe that religiosity is in decline. However, someone who uses a functional definition could argue that religiosity is just as strong as ever, it has just changed – with civil religion having taken over from ‘traditional’ religions, for example.
In this chapter Nicholas Carr covers the evolution of writing technologies and their impacts on the human brain and the development of knowledge.
When people first began to write, they simply scratched their marks on anything that was convenient, such as smooth faced rocks, or strips of bark.
The Sumerians were the first to use a specialised medium for writing: specially prepared blocks of clay, and then the Egyptians began manufacturing papyrus scrolls around 2500 BC.
The problem with scrolls is that they were expensive, but the development of the wax tablet meant writing technologies spread to more people: these were much cheaper than scrolls as they could be wiped clean and thus reused. In order to store lengthier texts people would lash together several wax tablets.
The wax tablet also served as the model for the first book. This was created by an anonymous Roman artisan who first lashed together several sheets of parchment between a pair of rigid rectangles of leather to create it.
However, it wasn’t until the introduction of the printing press in the mid 15th century that the book found its perfect medium. The printing press led to a ‘virtuous cycle’ in which the increased availability of books further stimulated demand for books.
The 16th century saw the printing press go global and the first great flowering of printed literature: from Shakespeare to Milton and from Bacon to Descartes. Of course, there was also more ‘tawdry’ literature available, but this just help spread literacy to the masses.
Carr argues that the arrival of movable-type printing was a central event in the history of Western culture and the development of the Western mind.
For the medieval type of brain according got J.Z. Young, making true statements depended on fitting sensory experience with the symbols of religion. The letterpress changed that: As books became common, men could look more directly at each other’s observations, with a great increase in the accuracy and content of the information.
The social and cultural consequences were as widespread as they were profound….. reading and writing became two main attributes of citizenship in a new ‘republic of letters’.
Carr now argues that there is something of an intimate relationship between a writer and a book, and a reader and a book: the book encourages a focussed and sustained intellectual effort in a way that simply was not possible before the invention of the book.
To read a book, at least one of the great literary works, one must follow an argument, a sustained narrative… this encourages intellectual development.
Simply put, our great literary tradition of the last 400 years simply would not have existed without the technology of the book and the influence this had on the ‘neural pathways’ of so many of our great writers.
However, with the infiltration of media and especially 2.0 technologies into the mainstream, the pathways of our brain are once again changing.
This post will also be published to the social media site steemit on the steem blockchain.
Steemit is a social media site where you get paid for blogging in the crypto-currency steem. There are also similar sites on the steem blockchain through which you can get paid for uploading videos, or music and much more. Check out and join steemit for more information.
Max Weber theorized that 17th-century Protestant values contributed to the emergence of capitalism in Europe. Weber argued that Protestantism, particularly Calvinism, promoted a strong work ethic, characteristics upon which the capitalist system flourishes. However, he also noted that other factors, such as governmental support and available capital, played a role, and Protestantism alone did not necessarily lead to capitalism.
Weber argued the values of the protestant religion led to the emergence of capitalism in Northern Europe in the 1600s.
Weber observed that Capitalism first took off in Holland and England, in the mid 17th century. He asked himself the question: ‘why did Capitalism develop in these two countries first?’
Protestant Individualism and the Emergence of Capitalism
Weber argued that the particular varieties of protestantism present in England and Holland in the 1600s were essential to the emergence of capitalism in those two countries.
The values of Protestantism encouraged ways of acting which (unintentionally) resulted in capitalism emerging, over a period of many decades, even centuries.
Weber observed that most other countries in Europe at that time were Catholic. He theorised the different value systems of the two religions had different effects.
Protestantism encouraged people to ‘find God for themselves’. Protestantism taught that silent reflection, introspection and prayer were the best ways to find God. This (unintentionally, and over many years) encouraged Protestants to adopt a more ‘individualistic’ attitude to their religion by seeking their own interpretations of Christianity.
In contrast, Catholicism was a religion which encouraged more conservative values and thus resisted social changes. The Catholic Church had a top-down structure: from God to the Pope to the Senior Bishops and then down to the people. Ultimate power to interpret Catholic doctrine rested with the Pope and his closest advisers. The authorities expected practising Catholics to abide by such interpretations and not to interpret religious scripture for themselves.
Similarly, part of being a good Catholic meant attending mass, which was administered by a member of the Catholic establishment. This reinforced the idea that the church was in control of religious matters.
Weber argued that the individualistic ethos of Protestantism laid the foundations for a greater sense of individual freedom. It was acceptable to challenge ‘top down’ interpretations of Christian doctrine, as laid down by the clergy. Societies which have more individual freedom are more open to social changes. Hence why capitalism emerged first in the two Protestant countries England and Holland in the 1600s.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Book cover
The Protestant Ethic: necessary but not sufficient!
Weber recognised that protestantism alone did not explain why capitalism emerged in Holland and England first. He noted that Switzerland, Scotland and Hungary were also protestant countries. However these did not have other factors present which were conducive to social change.
Other factors existing in England and Holland were also important for capitalism to emerge, such as governments which supported protestantism and the availability of capital to invest. But protestantism was also an essential driver in the emergence of capitalism.
Weber also argued that Buddhism and Taoism in India and China prevented capitalism from emerging first there. India and China also had technological knowledge and labour for hire in the 1600s. However, Buddhist and Taoist religions encourage inner reflection rather than ‘a work ethic’. Hence India and China suitable belief systems for capitalism to emerge.
The Protestant Ethic
Weber argued that a particular denomination of Protestantism known as Calvinismplayed a key role in ushering in the social change of Capitalism.
Calvinism originated in the beliefs of John Calvin who preached the doctrine of predestination: God had already decided who was going to heaven (‘the elect’) before they were born. Similarly, God had also already decided who the damned were. Whether or not you were going to hell had already been decided before your birth.
This fatalistic situation raised the question of how you would know who was saved and who was damned. Fortunately, Calvinism also taught that there was a way of figuring this out. There were indicators which could tell you who was ‘elect’, and who was damned.
Simply put, the harder you worked, and the less time you spent idling and/ or engaged in unproductive, frivolous activities, then the more likely it was that you were one of those pre-chosen for a life in heaven. This is because, according to Calvinist doctrine, God valued hard-work and a ‘pure-life’ non-materialistic life.
According to Weber this led to a situation in which Calvinist communities encouraged work for the glory of God, and discouraged laziness and frivolity. Believers were motivated to stick to these ethical codes, given that hell was the punishment if you didn’t.
John Calvin: all work and no play!
Calvinism: all work and no play!
A strong value within Calvinism was asceticism and leading an ascetic lifestyle. Asceticism means leading an austere lifestyle of rigorous self-discipline and abstaining from life’s pleasures.
Hard work was a calling and Calvinists pursued it with single mindedness and with vigour.
John Wesley, leader of the Methodist revival just before the industrial revolution wrote towards the end of the 18th century:
‘For religion must necessarily produce industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. We must exhort all Christians to gain what they can and to save all they can; that is, in effect to grow rich’. (Quoted in Weber, 1954.)
Calvinists disliked time-wasting, idle gossip and more sleep than was necessary. They frowned on impulsive fun and enjoyment such as pubs and gaming houses. Sport and recreation were only justified for improving fitness, not for fun. Sex was only for procreation.
Since asceticism was also a belief, people couldn’t spend their riches on enjoying themselves. Rather, they should invest profits back in their businesses to enhance capacity to meet their calling.
Over the decades, the ‘work-ethic’ of protestantism encouraged individuals and whole communities to set up businesses, and re-invest any money they earned to grow these businesses.
The Spirit of Capitalism
The attitude towards wealth in protestantism mirrored the attitude to wealth creation in capitalism.
Underlying the practice of capitalism was what Weber called the ‘Spirit of Capitalism’.
Weber saw this spirit in the works of Benjamin Franklin. He wrote works entitled ‘Necessary Hints to Those that Would be Rich’ (1736) and ‘Advice to a Young Tradesman’ (1748). In the later he wrote:
‘Remember that time is money. Time wasting, idleness and diversion lose money…. A reputation for prudence and honesty will bring credit… Business people should behave with industry and frugality and punctuality and justice in their dealings.’
The Spirit of capitalism was more than about making money, it was also a way of life and a set of ethics. Making money became both a religious ethic and a business ethic.
Capitalist enterprises are organised on rational bureaucratic lines. Capitalists conduct Business transactions in a systematic and rational manner and they monitor costs and profits closely. This single minded, rational pursuit of profits is like a sense of calling in protestantism.
The protestant idea of a regimented and disciplined life and the idea that people had a set place in life further encouraged standardised production and justified the division of labour.
Weber argued that over the following centuries, the norm of working hard and investing in your business became entrenched in European societies. These norms encouraged entrepreneurialism and a rational approach to mass production which fuelled capitalism.
Eventually the old protestant religious ideas withered away and we were left with mainly secular, capitalist societies.
Evaluations of the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Weber’s theory of social change recognises that we need to take account of individual motivations for action in order to understand massive social structural changes.
Kautsky developed a Marxist critique of Weber. He argued that early capitalism preceded Calvinism. He sees Calvinism as developing in countries and cities where commerce and early industrialisation were already established. Then Calvinism came along to justify their already existing capitalist practices.
Critics have pointed out that the emergence of Capitalism doesn’t actually correlate that well with Protestantism. There are many historical examples of Capitalist systems having emerged in non-Protestant countries. An example of this is Italian Mercantilism a couple of centuries earlier.
There are also some Calvinist countries where capitalism developed much later on. For example Switzerland and Scotland.
However, defenders of Weber dismiss the above criticisms. They point out that if we drill down into the examples of where capitalism didn’t emerge in some calvinist countries, those countries didn’t have other necessary factors. For example in Scotland, they lacked capital investment and government policies were not favourable.
Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic: how is it relevant to A-level Sociology?
This work is one of the main studies within the beliefs in society module.
Weber (1958, first published 1904) argued that in some circumstances religion can cause social change. Religious beliefs may have united protestants in the 1600s but those same beliefs resulted in long term social changes. Moreover, the emergence of capitalism is arguably the most important social change in modern history.
This criticises Functionalist and Marxist theories of religion which argue that religion prevents social change.
Weber’s theory also criticises Marx’s theory that religion is shaped by economic factors. In Weber’s theory the reverse happens: the beliefs of protestantism laid the foundations for the capitalist economic system.
Weber’s theory is also a good example of social action theory. We can only understand why capitalism emerged by understanding the world view of protestants 400 years ago. We need to understand their religious motives and beliefs to understand capitalism.
Are religious belief systems compatible with scientific belief systems? Is religious knowledge different to scientific knowledge?
This post considers the arguments and evidence for the view that religious beliefs are compatible with scientific belief systems.
One argument within the secularisation debate is that the Enlightenment started a process of rationalization within society, which led to technological developments and social progress. This in turn meant that the old, traditional, irrational religious belief systems were increasingly challenged, and so there was a corresponding decline in religion.
The above view holds that religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are incompatible, and that more rational scientific knowledge has effectively replaced religious knowledge in society, because scientific knowledge is some how superior.
However, there are others who argue that the relationship between science and religion is more complex and nuanced. This is especially understandable given the trend towards religious pluralism and the increasing diversity, or sub-divisions within science.
It is highly likely that ecumenical movements, or those with new age beliefs are more likely to find common ground with science than those from highly conservative religious movements or those with fundamentalist beliefs.
Religion and Science are compatible
There are several different lines of argument for the view that religious belief systems and scientific belief systems are compatible.
Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion were concerned with different aspects of human life which deal with different human needs.
Gould argued that one human need was to understand the workings of nature, which science dealt with. The job of science was to uncover objective knowledge about the ‘laws of nature’, which could be discovered using the scientific method.
Another human need was to find a meaning for their own life and to figure out a moral code which they should live by. Such meaning and morality are subjective and so cannot be discovered through the scientific method. People need religion to help them discover meaning and to lead a moral life.
According to Gould, these two spheres of human need do not overlap, and so religious knowledge systems and scientific knowledge systems can exist side by side.
Monotheistic religions which have a belief in one, universal God are compatible with science. It is possible to believe that there is ‘one God’ who created the universe and the laws by which it is governed, and then to use science to uncover exactly what those rules are.
Some recent concepts developed in the field of physics seem to support the worldview of traditional Asian belief systems, such as Taoism. A good example of this is Fritjof Capra’s ‘The Tao of Physics‘.
Some religions are actually based on science – The most obvious example here is scientology, which has developed devices such as the E-meter to track people’s progress towards the ‘Bridge to Total Freedom’.
What are the differences between science and religion? This post focuses on four areas of difference between the two:
The empirical versus the supernatural
Open versus closed belief systems
Evolving versus absolute knowledge
Objectivity versus subjectivity
Before reading this post, you might like to refresh your knowledge of what they key features of science are by reading this post: Is sociology a science?
Science limits itself to the empirical, religion concerns itself with the supernatural
Science tends to concern itself with the natural or physical world – that which can be observed and measured. If it cannot be observed or measured empirically, then it is not scientific.
Scientific knowledge is gained primarily through the experimental method: a hypothesis is formulated and then experiments designed to test the hypothesis. Experiments use standardized procedures of data collection, so that other scientists can repeat the exact same experiment in the same way and verify the data and test the findings for themselves.
In contrast religion tends to concern itself with the spiritual world, many aspects of which cannot necessarily be observed and measured in a scientific extent. For example, knowledge in many religions comes ultimately from God, and belief in the existence of God cannot be verified empirically. Belief in God is a matter of faith.
Any knowledge claims made by religions which are not verifiable by empirical observations cannot be regarded as ‘scientific’.
‘Open’ verses ‘closed belief systems
Science is an ‘open belief system’ – the data collected by scientists are open to testing by others. Research findings can thus be criticized.
According to Popper, the process of scientists critically scrutinizing findings of other scientists is fundamental to the scientific method. He argued that scientists should attempt to ‘falsify’ already existing hypotheses by designing experiments deliberately to disprove them. It is this process which ensures that scientific knowledge is valid: its ability to withstand the critical scrutiny of peers.
In contrast, religions tend to have ‘closed belief systems’ – religious knowledge is generally regarded as sacred, and should be accepted as is, rather than challenged.
Evolving versus absolute knowledge systems
Scientific knowledge is cumulative…. it evolves through a process of scientists learning about, criticizing, and improving upon the experimental work of previous scientists.
Religious belief systems, at least those based firmly on religious texts or an idea of an absolute truth are not open to change or growth. Those who challenge such religious belief systems may well be subject to sanctions.
Objectivity and value-freedom versus subjectivity
Subjective, personal feelings should be kept out the scientific process. Scientific knowledge should not be influenced by the personal opinions or biases of the researchers who conduct the experiments which provide the data to generate scientific knowledge.
In contrast, knowledge in many religious traditions is a matter of personal faith and intimate spiritual experience. Many religious experiences, prayer, for example, are highly personal, and not meant to be replicated by others.
This post was written primarily for students of A-level sociology (AQA exam board) and is one of the more difficult topics taught as part of the beliefs in society module.
The British government recently announced an additional £100 million of funding to tackle chronic homelessness in Britain. Chronic homelessness means those sleeping rough on the streets, rather than much larger numbers of invisible homeless: consisting of people in temporary accommodation or sleeping on friends’ couches.
The additional funding will pay for a three pronged ‘attack’ on homelessness:
£50 million for houses to be built outside of London, for people currently ready to move on from hostels
£30 million for mental health support for those sleeping rough.
Further funding to help people move on from prison into secure accommodation.
There is also funding available to provide more information and support to help those on the streets navigate their way out of homelessness, as well as the promise of research into the nature and extent of LGBT homelessness, currently a very under-researched area.
How effective is this social policy likely to be in combating homelessness?
Probably highly ineffective…
That funding is over 10 years – to 2027. There are an estimated 4751 people currently sleeping rough on any given night. If you divide £100 million by that figure, and then by 10 (10 years), the government is only committing an additional £2000 per person per year to combating homelessness. This doesn’t sound like a huge amount of money compared to the cost of housing, for example.
We have to understand this ‘additional funding’ in the context of the wider Tory cuts since 2010 – which have been linked to the increase in homelessness this decade…. 169% increase since 2010.
Finally, this policy does nothing to combat the much more widespread problem of households living in temporary accommodation -of which there are nearly 80, 000, again a figure which has increased under the Tory government since 2010.
In Conclusion…..
Maybe this is more about creating some positive news for the government rather than it being any serious attempt at combating homelessness.. £100 million is nice round, easy soundbite type of figure, yet in the grand scheme of what’s needed to tackle social problems, it is almost certainly insufficient to make a real difference to a significant number of people.
There are two general approaches to defining religion: functional which tend to have broad, more inclusive definitions of religion and and substantive approaches which tend to have narrower, more exclusive definitions of religion.
Functional definitions of religion
Functional definitions define religion in terms of the functions it performs for individuals and/ or society. For example, Yinger (1995) defines religion as ‘a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.’
Problems with functional definitions of religion
They are too inclusive: almost any movement with a belief system of any kind and a committed group of followers would classify as a religion – for example, communism, nationalism, and even atheism.
Because functional definitions are too inclusive, it makes the growth/ decline/ impact of religion impossible to measure.
Functional definitions are based on subjective opinions and assumptions about what the role of religion is. Rather, the role of the sociologist should be to uncover what the functions of religion are through empirical investigation.
Substantive definitions of religion
Substantive definitions of religion define religion in terms of its content rather than its function.
Emile Durkheim‘s, approach to defining religion can be regarded as a substantive definition – Durkhiem argued that religion was the collective marking off of the sacred from the profane.
A common approach to defining religion substantively is to define religion in terms of a belief in a higher power such a god or other supernatural forces. For example Robertson (1970): ‘Religion refers to the existence of supernatural beings that have a governing effect on life’.
Problems with substantive definitions of religion
They can be too exclusive. For example, definitions which are based on a belief in God would exclude Buddhism.
Substantive definitions might still be too inclusive. For example, people who believe in fate, magic, or UFOs might be included as religious according to the above definition.
Defining religion: why it matters
it may well not be possible to come up with a definition of religion that pleases everyone! There is an enormous variety of religious beliefs and practices globally, and the main problem with defining religion is to find a definition which encompasses this variety without including beliefs or practices which most people do not regard as religious.
The definition of religion that a sociologist subscribes to will have a profound impact on their conclusions about the role and impact religion has in society. This is most obviously the case where the secularization debate is concerned: if one adopts a more exclusive definition of religion, then it would appear that religion is in decline. However, if one adopts a more exclusive definition of religion, this decline will not be so apparent.
Signposting and relating posts
This is the first topic students should study as part of the beliefs in society option within A-level sociology.
Our intellectual maturation can be traced by looking at the way we draw pictures. Infants scrawl down only a very rough visual representation of what they see, as we get older, we develop the ability to represent pictures more accurately, with scientific precision.
This ‘artistic maturation’ process seems to mirror Jean Piaget’s evolutionary model of cognitive development within children:
In very young children’s pictures there is no recognition of perspective or depth.
As children mature, they develop a greater sense of intellectual realism – pictures display a greater degree of proportionality.
Finally, children develop a sense of intellectual realism – they employ abstract scientific measurements to make their pictures even more accurate.
The above process of individual development also seems to mirror the evolution of map making in society:
The very first maps were simply scrawls in the dirt.
Over many centuries these maps became more accurate and increasingly sophisticated scientific measurements were employed to portray regions with more precision.
Finally, maps were developed to display abstract ideas in an efficient form, as with the London Tube Map for example.
The London tube map – changing the way we perceive space?
These historical advances in cartography didn’t simply mirror the development of the human mind. They helped change the human mind. The more frequently and intensively people used maps, the more their minds came to understand reality in the maps’ terms.
The upside of this is that people are generally now more able to comprehend (unconsciously?) the unseen forces that shape their existence, because so many modern maps represent areas which we do not see in our day to day lives.
What the map did for space, the clock did for time….
For most of human history, time was experienced as cyclical phenomenon, dictated by agrarian rhythms, and it ‘flowed’ rather than being divided into abstract chunks.
All that started to change in the later half of the Middle Ages when monks started to demand more rigorous time keeping methods following an edict from Saint Benedict which stipulated that prayer should take place at specified times of the day. This spurred on the development of clocks which measured time.
As commerce, industrialisation and urbanisation took place, clock-time became increasingly important to co-ordinate the activities of business. And the units of time by which we measured things became smaller too…hours became minutes became seconds.
As clocks became smaller and watches became more popular, clock time infiltrated into our daily lives.
The clock profoundly changed the way we thought – it made us perceive reality as broken up into discrete measurable chunks, all divisible into further sub-units.
As Lewis Mumford said in ‘Technics and Civilization’, the clock ‘helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences. The ‘abstract framework of divided time’ became ‘the point of reference for both action and thought’.
Categories of human technology
Carr suggests that there are four categories of human technology, divided according to how they support our amplify our native capacities.
Technologies which enhance physical strength include the plough, the ruck sack, the fighter jet.
Technologies which enhance the sensitivity of our senses – the microscope and the amplifier for example.
Technologies which reshape nature to better serve our needs and desires – such as genetically modified crops or contraceptive technologies such as the pill (heralding in the age of ‘plastic sexuality’, to coin one of Anthony Gidden’s phrases.)
Finally, there are intellectual technologies, which extend our mental powers to find and classify information, to take measurements and make calculations and even to formulate and articulate ideas. Carr provides many examples of intellectual technologies including: the clock, the map, the typewriter, the abacus, the sextant, newspapers, schools, library, the computer and the internet.
All technologies are an expression of human will, and all change us to an extent, but is intellectual technologies which affect us the most deeply. It is these that transform the very way we perceive our place in the world, and the ways in which we express ourselves.
Technological determinism versus Instrumentalism
There is an ongoing debate over the extent to which technology shapes the individual. Technological determinists argue that by and large technology shapes the individuals. This view is like that of structuralist sociologists who argue that society shapes the individual. Exponents of this view include Veblen, Marx himself, and McLuhan.
Instrumentalists take the contrary view and argue that individuals play more of an active role in using technologies, and effectively have control over technology rather than being controlled by it.
So who is right? It depends on your analytical focus…
If you look at any particular technology at a particular time, then the instrumentalist view seems to be right. For example, the Amish have successfully resisted the use of many technologies into their culture.
However, if you take a broader, more general and historical perspective, then it is hard to argue that we choose not to use widely adopted technologies such as the clock, the map, the school or the internet.
As Landgon Winner puts it:
‘Though we’re rarely conscious of the fact, many of the routines of our lives follow paths laid down by technologies that came into use long before we were born’.
The social consequences of technology
The debate between technological determinists and instrumentalists is unlikely to be solved any time soon. This is probably because the stance one takes depends on the broad or narrow perspective which one has already subscribed to.
However, most of us can agree on the fact that that technological advances are often turning points in human history. It is hard to imagine modern civilization without technology.
Carr states that it is harder to measure the historical impact of technological developments on the neurocircuitry of the human brain. This is because, up until very recently, we simply haven’t had any way of measuring micro-level changes to the human brain.
However, the recent findings which support neuroplasticity (outlined above) suggest that the brain is extremely malleable. It is therefore reasonable to posit that with every mass adoption of a new intellectual technology such as the clock, map, or internet, there is a parallel mass re-wiring of our neural circuitry.
Each new technological development has influenced how we find, store and interpret information, how we direct our attention and how we remember and forget. New technologies have also influenced how we interact with others. In short, new technologies favour certain mental traits, leaving others to fade away.
Carr further suggests that we hand down our habitual neural patterns to our children, which are further reinforced by schooling and the media. Genetic traits matter little in establishing the general neurological zeitgeist, it would seem.
Nicholas Carr devotes the rest of the chapter to an account of how intellectual technologies may have shaped people’s mental capacities in a very broad sense.
He theorises that the development of the alphabet and of a written, rather than an oral culture represented fundamental evolutionary shifts in human social development. A literate culture (rather than an oral one) was necessary as a basis for modern science.
He generally seems to believe that writing enhances human consciousness
summary of chapter four please click here. To purchase the whole book, please click the link below…
This post will also be published to the social media site steemit on the steem blockchain.
Steemit is a social media site where you get paid for blogging in the crypto-currency steem. There are also similar sites on the steem blockchain through which you can get paid for uploading videos, or music and much more. Check out and join steemit for more information.
how many students study A-level sociology? What kinds of results do sociology students achieve?
How many students study A-level sociology in England?
In 2017, there were 32, 269 entries to the A-level sociology exam, up from 26, 321 entries in 2008.
How does this compare to A-level entries overall?
Sociology has grown in popularity compared to the overall A-level numbers. Overall A-level numbers have increased less rapidly during the same period: from 760 881 in 2008 , to 828355 2017.
It’s probably worth noting that these recent trends actually have a longer history, and are shared by other ‘critical humanities subjects’ such as politics and psychology. Please see this post for a brief summary of some recent research findings from the British Sociological Association on this topic.
What kind of people study A-level sociology?
Research suggests that sociology students are significantly more awesome than students who mistakenly choose not to study sociology. There’s no actual data to back this up, but that’s what the available evidence suggests.
Girls (sorry, ‘young women’) are also more likely to study sociology than boys…. approximately 77% of students studying sociology in 2017 were female, and the proportion of girls to boys has actually increased the last decade.
This means that if you’re a straight lad, and you’re relatively nice and mature, then you’ve got more chance of picking up a girlfriend in a sociology class than in pretty much any other subject!
What are my chances of getting an A* in Sociology?
Not great.
Overall, 4.7% of students achieved an A* in A-level sociology in 2017. 18% 43.8% got an B or above, and 72.9% got a C or above. The pass rate was 97.5%
How does this compare to other subjects?
It’s much harder to get an A* or an A in sociology compared to other subjects, a little bit harder to get a B, but your chances of ending up with a C-E grade are about the same as for other subjects.
Boys seem to do much worse than girls in sociology relative to other subjects, perhaps because they’re more distracted (by the girls?)
Where does this data come from?
The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) publishes all A and AS level results for all subjects. It show the results by cumulative and actual percentage per grade, broken down by gender.
Just in case you came here looking for information on ‘statistics’ you might like to check out my material on research methods – there’s some pretty good material if you follow the links, even if I do say so myself!
In this chapter Nicholas Carr covers the evolution of writing technologies and their impacts on the human brain and the development of knowledge.
