Category: Social Theory (A2)

Ulrich Beck: Global Risk Society

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:

  1. Global, incalculable damage: Accidents may cause damage that cannot be compensated for, as traditional mechanisms like insurance no longer work.
  2. Irreversible exclusion of precautionary measures: We cannot return conditions to the way they were prior to the accident.
  3. 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.

A conceptual cityscape blending traditional urban elements with futuristic, chaotic overlays, symbolizing uncertainty and transformation. The image fe

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.

A group of scientists in a lab surrounded by symbols of risks they have created, such as chemical spills, a nuclear

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:

  1. Denial: Ignoring or minimising risks.
  2. Apathy: Acknowledging risks but failing to act.
  3. 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.

A highly contrasting split-screen illustration showcasing the extreme inequality of risks in modern society.

Globalised fears and hopes

Beck argues that global risks require global responses. He highlights three positive outcomes:

  1. Collective responses to catastrophic risks.
  2. Increased media attention to how disasters disproportionately affect the poor.
  3. 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.

An image depicting collaboration against global risks. The scene shows diverse groups, including scientists, environmental activists, and business.
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.

Sources

Ulrich Beck Risk Society

Risk Society on Wikipedia

Ethnomethodology: Social Order as Fiction!

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

  1. Social Order is a fiction. Social Order Isn’t Fixed: Social order is actively created and maintained by individuals through shared practices and assumptions.
  2. 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. 
  3. The job of ethnomethodology is to document the micro-processes through which individuals maintain social fictions.
  4. Ethnomethodology is well known for its ‘breaching experiments’. Here people deliberately break social norms to highlight the hidden rules that govern everyday life. 
  5. 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.

Key text: Garfinkel, H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology

You can find out more about Garfinkel in this Wikiepedia article.

Sociological Perspectives and Concepts Applied to the Death of The Queen…

How might Interactionists, Functionalists, Marxists and Postmodernists interpret the death of The Queen..?

The Queen died on Thursday 8th September 2022, ending her reign as the longest serving monarch in British history.

Events like this are rare and the offer sociology students a good opportunity to practice applying perspectives and concepts to the event itself and the societal reaction to the event.

NB to be honest we are probably considering below the societal reaction to the event for the most part – both on the part of the media and the people themselves. This isn’t unusual as the Monarchy is a social construction and kept alive by people recognising its significance.

How would the main sociological perspectives understand the death of The Queen…

Interactionism

A good starting point for thinking about the Monarchy could well be Interactionism – the Queen, after all, is a symbol, rather than an individual that we know, even if millions of people may have convinced themselves they know the ‘person’ rather than the symbol.

In terms of symbolism The Queen, as the media have been very keen to point out, represents a ‘point of stability and continuity’ over the last 70 years, really THE ONLY person in all that time to have always been there in the public eye, an ever ‘reassuring presence’.

And of course she does represent (as a symbol) ‘Britain’ and ‘British Identity’ itself – so many symbols of the nation are linked to the Queen – obviously Buckingham Palace and her other residences, but also the Grenadier Guards specifically and the armed forces more generally, but also pretty much ANYTHNG you can point to as being British – because her role over the last 70 years has been to attend various national events, and to give awards (such as Knighthoods) to those deemed to be worthy, such as Captain Tom Moore.

Not to mention the fact that she’s on our bank notes, coins and stamps as well!

And of course The Queen as (as far as I know) always been police, apolitical (in public engagements) and attended a diverse range of events and met it could well be as many as millions of people over the last 70 years, so it’s very difficult not to ‘like the presentation of herself’ because she has come across as extremely, well ‘nice’

And she has been the most visible outward facing symbol of British National Identity – when people abroad think of Britain they probably think of The Queen as one of the most pre-eminent symbols of the nation.

So I’m not going to criticise anyone for feeling a sense of loss at The Queen’s death, we have lost our most important National Symbol, our longest serving, most continuous symbol of national unity – and even if the idea of national unity is a myth, even if people are mistakenly mourning the person rathe than the symbol (thinking they know here when they don’t) all of that doesn’t really matter – from the Interactionist point of view our society is constructed of symbols, and that’s what matters.

And it is highly unlikely that Charles can replace The Queen – he’s been too political over the years, too ‘odd’ with his views, Dianna is dead, Camilla is somehow a bit fake, and most importantly he hasn’t got youth on his side.

We could well be witnessing, with the death of The Queen, the death of the British Monarchy, effectively, something lost, never to be replaced.

One final word on Interactionism – about Impression Management – it’s worth remembering just how much backstage work has gone into prepping The Queen for her outward facing public visits – dozens of servants, hundreds of millions of pounds – and yes she has worked every day for 70 years more or less but there has been a lot of backstage prepping going on too!

Functionalism

The Mainstream Media seem to be interpreting the death of The Queen in classical Functionalist terms from the 1950s, but personally I think this is inaccurate.

For a start there is a TOTAL lack of criticism of the monarchy as an institution in the mainstream media in general, and especially now, and the ‘discourse’ is very much one of treating the Monarchy as if it has played a vital function in British society over the last 70 years under the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

And the main ‘function’ that The Queen has performed is that of being a symbol of national unity, helping maintain a sense of national identity and a sense of social solidarity, especially during The Pandemic, when in a now famous line she said ‘we will meet again’.

And now that the Queen is Dead it’s as if we are about to plunge into a time of radical uncertainty, of anomie, of rootlessness in a time when all in the world is chaos – political change in the UK, the cost of living crisis, the war in the Ukraine, AND NOW THE QUEEN!

HOWEVER, it might be better to view the monarchy as something of a ‘defunct institution’ – something based on ascribed status which harkers back to pre-modernity, and, in its postmodern incarnation is increasingly dysfunctional with it’s Divorced and Paedophile Princes.

One thing the monarchy isn’t is meritocratic, that’s for sure, and the one recent opinion poll from YouGov reported that only 6/10 Britons want the Monarchy to continue, so the idea that the symbol of the monarchy promotes social solidarity simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny…

It is more likely that the media reporting on the death of the Queen and what a great loss this is for the nation is ideological – it reflects the views of the conservative and older people who set the media agenda, this doesn’t reflect the views of younger people or Labour supporters.

The Marxist Perspective on the Monarchy

One of the key concepts of Marxism is social class, and one of their key aims is develop a class-based analysis of society.

And the monarchy is just about as elite as you can get. They are among the largest landowners in Britain with a crown estate worth £14 billion and the Queen is (or was) personally one of the wealthiest individuals in the country.

The children always go to Elite schools and the boys become men do a stint as officers in the army, navy or air force, and as the Queen’s 96 years of age are testimony to, the royals are very long lived – and the higher social classes to tend to live longer overall!  

And despite their huge wealth, the monarchy still receives a state subsidy from the British taxpayer, which is, for them, completely unnecessary.

The media, however, NEVER comment on this old-school-elite-class fact of life, but we have got to see this in effect with the old restored images of the Queen’s Jubilee back in the 1950s – with all the gilded pomp and ceremony.

One wonders whether there will be a toning down of this when Charles is coronated, this kind of upper-class parade seems extremely distasteful in our modern/ post-modern meritocratic society.

A final word on Marxism – you might want to think how far the Queen’s death preforms an ideological function – in that it distracts us from other MASSIVE political issues – we have a new even more neoliberal government in power, and there is a cost of living crisis that is now slipped down the agenda for a few days at least.

Post and Late Modernism

I have already considered some of these concepts above – but one additional concept worth considering in relation to The Monarchy is that of hyperreality – the media seem intent on making The Queen’s death into more than it is, ‘milking it for all it is worth’ – this is the best profit-making event newspapers are likely to see this century, for example, and they’ve probably had their ‘memorial supplements’ ready to go for years.

The Newspapers were late being delivered on 9th of September 2022, obviously because of last minute modifications being made, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the reporting is going to be any more accurate, it probably just means adding to the hyperreal construction of the event, making it more than what it is.

That isn’t to say The Queen’s death isn’t real, of course it happened, but think about it – there is a LOT of constructing the narrative around the event, creating its significance, THAT is what is hyperreal.

 Individualisation is another highly relevant concept when it comes to the way the media treat The Queen – focusing on HER as an individual rather than the institution of the monarchy as a whole – thus simplifying the narrative and preventing critical discourse around the wider institution.

Finally, this is certainly a ‘reflexive event’ with the media calling on the nation to reflect on what the passing of The Queen means and where we go from here…

You can read this post on Postmodernism for a more in-depth look!

Signposting and how to use this material…

Teachers of A-level Sociology might like to use this as a refresher with their Second Year students – you could get students working in small groups each focussing on one of the perspectives above and then get them to feed back their findings to the class.

It would probably fit best with the Theory and Methods part of the course, the theory part especially.

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

The Queen’s 70th Jubilee – It feels like the last gasp for Modernity….

I can’t think of any individuals who represent Britishness, continuity and stability better than THE QUEEEN – she’s just always been there throughout my entire life, and through all my Dad’s adult life too.

And, unlike younger members of the royal family, The Queen it seems has never put a foot wrong – she’s just done her queen thing for 70 years – attended thousands of national events, given her speech at Christmas, opened Parliament nearly every year (until recently) – she is very possibly THE ONLY continuous symbol that’s just ‘carried on’ for that length of time.

When she was coronated in 1953 (that date’s from memory I think it’s right), Functionalism was in its heyday, at least American Functionalism exemplified by the work of Talcott Parsons – and and events such as the Jubilee and the way the majority of people come together around The Queen seem to be good examples of a shared collective conscience.

And even the way the Royal Estate seems to be managing the succession – giving Charles more of a central role and making him more visible (he opened Parliament this year) seems very ordered, very MODERN – orderly change within a centralised authority – there really is something very modern about the whole institution of royalty.

And it seems to me that there’s a general feeling that the 70th Jubilee is something good – there’s almost a sense of relief that there’s something positive to celebrate post-covid and amidst the Cost of Living Crisis – I doubt there will be many overt protests this year.

However I also get the feeling there’s a kind of ‘disbelief in relief’ at having The Jubilee to celebrate – it’s obvious the Royal family has faded in ‘glory’, it’s obvious that this will probably be The Queen’s last significant jubilee, there’s almost a tinge of sadness about the whole affair.

It’s as if we’re witnessing a celebration of a bye gone era – it’s like a flashback to Modernity when things were more certain – kind of similar to when you go to an 80s party – you dress up and make believe for an evening – and so here does the Nation for the Jubilee Weekend.

Because in truth the Royal Family is more post-modern than ever – with Meghan and Harry having ‘divorced themselves’ from the institution, and with their very own paedophile-prince (Andrew) showing that they don’t all have the same norms and values.

And once The Queen is gone we are left with Charles and Camilla – it’s just not the same rally-round is it? Much more chalk and cheese!

And when the Jubilee weekend is over, it’s back to postmodern/ late modern reality for us all – the grind, the uncertainty, the increasing cost of living, the fear of the next Pandemic.

This Jubilee celebration is just a pit stop to the past, pleasant to play modernity dress up for a weekend, but that’s all it is.

Related Posts

From Modernity to Post Modernity

Marxism Applied to Topics in A-level Sociology

The easiest way for students to prepare for the Theory and Methods parts of the A-Level Sociology Paper 1 and Paper 3 exams is to revise how Marxism applies to the different topic areas usually taught as part of the specification – typically the Family, Education, Religion and Crime and Deviance.

For an overview of these two papers please see my ‘exams advice page’.

This post is a summary of how Marxism applies to these topic areas.

Research Methods Implications

  • Scientific Marxism – The purpose of research is to find out more about the laws of Capitalism to see when revolution is ripe
  • Requires a Cross National Macro-Approach to social research focusing on economics and how the economy affects society
  • Humanistic Marxism – Research can be more varied, focusing on highlighting social injustices in order to make people more critical of Capitalism (Not value free!)

Marxism applied to the family

  • Capitalism, Private Property and The Family
  • The family as a safe haven

More at the Marxist Perspective on the Family.

Marxism and Education

  • The ideological state apparatus
  • Reproduction/ Legitimation of class inequality
  • Correspondence Principle
  • Cultural Capital

More at the Marxist Perspective on Education.

Dependency Theory

  • Colonialism and Slavery
  • The Modern World System
  • Unfair trade rules
  • TNC exploitation

More at Dependency Theory .

Marxism applied to Crime and Deviance

  • Private Property and Crime
  • The costs of Corporate Crime
  • Selective Law Enforcement
  • Criminogenic Capitalism (‘Dog Eat Dog“ Society)

For more see The Marxist Perspective on Crime and Deviance.

Marxism – more advanced theory

Using what Marxists say about the above topic areas is just one way to approach a theory question on Marxism, another way is to use the work of specific Marxists such as Althusser and Gramsci, and of course Marx himself. These ideas are outlined in this revision post: Marxism A-level Sociology Revision Notes.

For more links to Marxist theory please see my Theory and Methods page for A2 Sociology.

Functionalism applied to different topic areas in A-level Sociology….

One of the easiest ways to revise for the Paper 3 theory and methods paper (the theory and methods section) is to rely on what different theories say about the topic areas within Sociology, such as the family, education and crime and deviance.

This post is a summary with links of what Functionalists say about the man topic areas…

Functionalism: Main Ideas

(D= Durkheim, P = Parsons)…

  • (D) Society exists externally to the individual as a series of social facts – there is a social structure which exists independently from individuals. This social structure shapes the individual.
  • (D) Individuals need to be constrained.
    (D) Anomie is the fundamental problem of advanced industrial societies. Figuring out how to achieve solidarity based on change and difference is the big question of our times.
  • (P) We should analyse society as a system – look at each bit by looking at the contribution it makes to the whole
  • (P) Socialisation is important – individuals need to be regulated for the benefit of everyone. The integration and regulation of individuals is a good thing.
  • (P) Advanced Industrial society is better than primitive society – one of the main reasons social order is so important is so we don’t go backwards – (ties into the idea of progress

From Functionalist Theory and Methods.

Functionalism: Research Methods Implications

  • See Positivism
  • Macro-Level Research
  • Social Facts
  • Objectivity
  • Official Statistics
  • Correlations
  • Generaliseablity
  • Science

How they understand family life       

  • The four universal functions of the family
  • Functional fit theory
  • Primary socialisation
  • Stabilisation of adult personalities
  • Gender roles

From Functionalism and the Family.

How they understand education       

  • Secondary socialisation
  • Social Solidarity
  • Skills for working
  • Meritocracy
  • Role Allocation

From the Functionalist Perspective on Education.

How they understand crime and deviance   

  • The Inevitability of crime (society of saints)
  • Three positive Functions of Crime (integration, regulation and social changed)
  • Bonds of attachment theory (the more detached an individual, the more likely they are to turn to crime)
  • Subcultural Theory (when whole groups become detached, crime is more likely)

Mainly from the Functionalist Perspective on Crime and Deviance.

Key Studies and Examples you can use to illustrate Functionalism…           

  • Durkheim’s 1897 study of suicide, and the fact that contemporary official statistics today show the same patterns
  • The EU Referendum and the ‘Immigration Crisis’ (illustrate how we haven’t managed to figure out a way of achieving solidarity based on difference, rather than solidarity based on similarity)
  • The Case study of Musharef in Educating Yorkshire shows one school being functional in a similar way to Parson’s view of education
  • The way the Police and the media respond to high profile very serious crimes seems to reinforce social integration and
  • social regulation at a societal level – for example the social responses to September 11th and other terrorist attacks and to the London Riots.

Overall evaluations of Functionalism

  • Merton’s dysfunctionality critique
  • Deterministic
  • Rose Tinted
  • Teleological
  • Ethnocentric/ ideological

Sociological Perspectives Teaching Resource Bundle

A level Sociology teaching resources for sale – perspectives in sociology.

I’ve just release a new sociological perspectives teaching resource bundle as part of my A-level sociology teaching resources subscription package.

This teaching resource bundle contains everything teachers need to deliver 10-hour long theory lessons for A level sociology, focusing on perspectives in sociology.  

An overview of the ten theory lessons

  1. An overview of the perspectives/ key sociological questions (2 lessons)
  2. Functionalism (1.5 lessons)
  3. Marxism (1.5 lessons)
  4. Feminisms (2 lessons)
  5. Social Action Theory (1 lesson)
  6. Postmodernism (2 lessons)

Resources in the bundle include:

  • Six Student workbooks covering all of the above lessons
  • Six Power Points covering most of the above lessons (not for riots or the corporate crime research lesson.
  • Lesson plans covering all of the above lessons.
  • Various supplementary hand-outs for some of the above lessons as necessary.
  • LOTS of different types of theory grids and concepts for cutting and doing sentence sorts with
  • Full theory and methods scheme of work.

Fully modifiable resources

Every teacher likes to make resources their own by adding some things in and cutting other things out – and you can do this with both the work pack and the PowerPoints because I’m selling them in Word and PPT, rather than as PDFs, so you can modify them!

NB – I have had to remove most the pictures I use personally, for copyright reasons, but I’m sure you can find your own to fit in. It’s obvious where I’ve taken them out!

Using contemporary examples to evaluate for theory and methods

A level sociology students should be looking to using contemporary examples and case studies to illustrate points and evaluate theories whenever possible. In the exams, the use of contemporary evidence is something examiners look for and reward.

Below are a few examples of some recent events in the news which are relevant to the theory and methods aspects of sociology

All of the above took place in either 2019 or 2018! 

Karl Popper: Sociology can be Scientific…

Popper believed that social science could be scientific, but that that social scientific knowledge has to be based on deduction and falsification (rather than induction and verification).

For Popper, sociology can be scientific if it makes precise predictions through the use of the hypothetic-deductive model.

In the hypothetic-deductive model, researchers start with a specific, testable, hypothesis, then they collect data, analyse it, and either confirm the hypothesis based on their evidence, or reject it and start the process over again. If a hypothesis is proven, then a theory may be derived which will form the basis of future research.

The principle of falsification means researchers deliberately look for evidence that could disprove their hypothesis.

In the above model, ‘grand theories’ such as those put forwards by Marxism are not specific enough to be tested.

The implications are that if sociology wants to be regarded as a science it must limit itself to research questions which can be turned into clear hypotheses and tested by others.

Unlike Durkheim, Popper believed that we can never verify laws of human behaviour because it’s always possible to find future evidence which could falsify existing social theories.

Comparison of Popper and Durkheim

Durkheim argued that science, and social science should be inductive and based on verification.

Popper argued that science and thus social science were based on deduction and falsification.

Key Terms

Induction = looking at the evidence and developing a theory from that evidence

Deduction = starting with a theory and testing it by working out what evidence would verify or falsify it.

Source/ disclaimer

I have summarised this from Chapman 2015, which in turn is obviously summarised from Haralambos edition 8.

Bauman’s Consuming Life A Summary – Chapter 2 – The Society of Consumers

Summary of chapter One 

A fairly lengthy, paraphrased summary with a few comments in italics

consuming life bauman.jpgIn consumer culture people behave ‘unreflexivly’ – without thinking about what they consider to be their life purpose and what they believe to be the right means of reaching it, without thinking about about what prompts them into action or escape, or about what they desire, what they fear and at what point fears and desires balance each other out

Nb – In defining consumers as unreflexive – that is, anyone who limits their conscious reflection to questions of what to consume- rather than focusing on the ‘deeper’ questions of life – Bauman seems to deny that such people have any sense of agency – they are not fully human. 

The society of consumers stands for a set of existential conditions under which the probability is high that most people will embrace the consumerist rather than any other culture, and obey its rules.

The ‘society of consumers’ is a kind of society which ‘interpellates’ its members primarily in their capacity as consumers. While doing that, ‘society’ expects to be heard, listened to and obeyed; it evaluates – rewards and penalizes – its members depending on the promptness and propriety of their response to the interpellation.

As a result, one’s ability to engage in consumerist performance has become the paramount stratifying factor and the principal criterion of inclusion in or exclusion from society, as well as guiding the distribution of social esteem and stigma, and shares in public attention.

(Following Frank Trentmann) This is historically unusual – for most of the modern period consumption was little discussed and when it was it was typically associated with eccentricity and wastefulness.

For the better part of modern history (that is, throughout the era of massive industrial plants and massive conscript armies), society ‘interpellated’ most of the male half of its members as primarily producers and soldiers, and almost all of the other (female) half as first and foremost their by-appointment purveyors of services.

It was the body of the would-be worker or soldier that counted most; their spirit, on the other hand, was to be silenced, numbed and thereby ‘deactivated’.

The society of consumers, on the other hand, focuses its training and coercing pressures on the management of the spirit – leaving the manage- meant of bodies to individually undertaken DIY labour, individually supervised and coordinated by spiritually trained and coerced individuals.

This coercive pressure is exerted on members of the society of consumers from their early childhood.. Following Daniel Thomas Cooke…

‘the battles waged over and around children’s consumer culture are no less than battles over the nature of the person and the scope of personhood in the context of the ever-expanding reach of commerce.’

The society of consumers does not recognize differences of age or gender (however counter-factually) and will not make allowances for either; nor does it (blatantly counter-factually) recognize class distinctions. From the geographic centres of the worldwide network of information highways to its furthest, however impoverished peripheries…

‘the poor are forced into a situation in which they either have to spend what little money or resources they have on senseless consumer objects rather than basic necessities in order to deflect total social humiliation or face the prospect of being teased and laughed at.’ (In Ekstrom et al, Elusive Consumption, 2004.)

However it is down to the individual to negotiate the staggering amount of info in order to make the right consumer decisions to avoid derision.
Since ‘social fitness’ is the responsibility of the individual, if people fail to make the right choices they are blamed (and thus constructed as ‘flawed consumers’) – we are taught to believe that there is nothing wrong with society, because there is plenty of choice, and so if people fail to succeed they are not deserving of care.

At least the above is the case if we are unreflexive viz our consumption habits.

Consumption is an investment in everything that matters for individual ‘social value’ and self-esteem, thus the crucial, perhaps the decisive purpose of consumption in the society of consumers is not the satisfaction of needs, desires and wants, but the commoditization or recommoditization of the consumer: raising the status of consumers themselves to that of sellable commodities.

If you wish to take part in society, you have to consume in this way – turning yourself into a commodity – this is a precondition which is non negotiable thus market relations are fundamental to the society of consumers, as is the calculating mindset which goes along with it.

I’m left wondering what Bauman would make of attempts to set up alternative, low impact cultures assisted by alternative financial avenues such as Kick Starter?

—

Becoming and remaining a sellable commodity is the most potent motive of consumer concerns, even if it is usually latent and seldom conscious, let alone explicitly declared.
The society of consumers, with its compulsive and willing individualization places a magnified emphasis on the on the subject as the one who has the duty to make oneself something, and on the individual as being the one who is responsible if one fails.
NB – I guess to simplify one of Bauman’s basic points you could just say that we believe that we are responsible for own successes and failures in life only because that is what society tells us, and this isn’t necessarily true.
In the society of producers, society took on the role of a ‘collective Prometheus’ – it took responsibility for the product in exchange for the individual conforming to social norms. If you just ‘became’ what society asked of you’ that was enough – your Promethean challenge, and sense of of Promethean pride could thus be earned if you fulfilled your social role.
However, in the age of individualisation, now that society ‘doesn’t exist’ (TINA) just becoming what society wants is no longer an option – ( in the consumer society the point, the task, is to continually become something else).
Being born, having become something are now sources of ‘Promethean shame’ and the task of the individual is to perfect themselves – to become more than they are, and there is never an end to this process… life is a never ending struggle of becoming.
Because of this, being a member of the society of consumers is a daunting task, a never-ending and uphill struggle. The fear of failing to conform has been elbowed out by a fear of inadequacy, and consumer markets are eager to capitalize on that fear, and companies turning out consumer goods vie for the status of the most reliable guide and helper in their clients’ unending effort to rise to the challenge. They supply ‘the tools’, the instruments required by the individually performed job of ‘self-fabrication’.
However, following Gunder Anders, it is absurd to think of those tools as enabling an individual choice of purpose. These instruments are the crystallization of irresistible ‘necessity’ – which individuals must learn to obey, in order to be free. Cites teen fashion as an example.
I’d be interested in looking at the social construction of retirement in this… to what extent is retirement constructed as a time when we are expected to ‘consume hard’? Does all of this end then?

—
There are two versions of human history – That of life as a progression towards greater rationality and freedom, of which consumer choice is the latest ‘highest’ expression, the other is of the increasing colonisation of human life by commodity markets – the society of consumers is its zenith because humans are now obliged to interact with each other at the same level as the products they consume (as explained above) – they purchase products in order to maximise their own market-value and they have no choice but to do so.
NB – I get the impression that Bauman sides with the later version.
Markets today are sovereign, you only get political rights if you are able to consume – people such as the underclass and illegal immigrants (flawed consumers) are seen as having no rights in the popular imagination, and there is no authority they can appeal to because the state’s ability to draw the line between the included and the excluded has been eroded by the market – it now makes these decisions, and it has no tangible body that can be appealed to if people feel unfairly excluded.
In recent decades the state has shifted many of its functions sideways to the market such that the state has now become the arbiter of market demands, evidence in the centrality of economic measurements as the state’s primary indicators of its ‘success’.
—
The secret of every durable (successfully self-reproducing) social system is the recasting of its ‘functional prerequisites’ into behavioural motives of actors – the secret is making individuals wish to do what is needed for the system to reproduce itself.
In the modern period, this required an emphasis on deferred gratification – people committing to the idea of putting off pleasure now in order to reap the rewards in the future.
We also see in the general theories of the time – such as Freud’s reality principle and in Bentham’s panopticon – that the good society could only be constructed with the individual’s subordination to the society.
(However, such theories were themselves a product of the crisis of community – the very fact that people were thinking about community demonstrates that community is no longer ‘taken for granted’ as it was in traditional times, and because of this, it was already losing its power as a coercive force).
Much of the modern period thus involved nation states vying to restrict freedom of choice through panopticon style discipline and punish rule, but this was always cumbersome.

In the post-modern era (mistakenly conceived as a decivilising process) the civilising process takes the form of the ‘obligation to choose’ but this breeds little resistance because it is represented and conceived as freedom of choice.
People now are obliged to seek happiness and pleasure and this is lived through as an exercise of ‘freedom’ and self-assertion. Today it is as if the (individualised) pleasure principle has taken over the reality principle as the primary regulating force in society. (Reminds me of happiness is mandatory.)

When society confronts us (which it rarely does as a totality, these days) it does so in ways which make it easy for us to act as solitary consumers… (rather than in large collectivities). Bauman now gives several examples of this:

  • As mentioned earlier on in the chapter, this starts with childhood
  • At university, the new future-elite of consumers are socialised into the norm of living on credit (phase one)
  • At home we have TV dinners and fast food, which protect solitary consumers.
  • The primary acts of consumption are done in swarms – groups who come together for limited times with loose connections.
  • Elsewhere Bauman has also written about the nature of shopping malls, privatised public spaces of individualised consumption.
  • Even our post-modern ‘collective’ carnivalesque acts reinforce individualism – we come together in fringe moments to get our ‘collective’ fix and then go back to being individuals again .. ..

The chapter finishes with something about tax cuts to the rich and shifting taxation away from income to expenditure which doesn’t make much sense in the context of the chapter.