Category: Sociological concepts

Here are four of my favourite historic examples of elites getting away with crime, which broadly supports the Marxist perspective on crime….

I wish I could say there was some kind of points ranking system that leads to the 1-4, but there isn’t – the ranking’s mainly based on a combination of  harm done, raw cheek, and the extent to which these ‘criminals that aren’t actually criminals’ annoy me.

In at number four – achieving its position for the sheer cheek of it – Derek Conway (ex) MP – I know there are more recent examples of the expenses scandals, but this one from a few years ago really stands out – in 2007, an inquiry found that Conservative MP Derek Conway had “misused” parliamentary funds by paying an annual £11,773 salary, plus bonuses totalling more than £10,000, to his younger son Freddie while he was a full-time student in Newcastle upon Tyne. The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee found that the arrangement with Freddie was “at the least, an improper use of parliamentary allowances: at worst, it was a serious diversion of public funds.”  The Commons committee said it was “astonished” by the lack of evidence of any work that Mr Conway’s second son had done in return for the £45,000 in salary. Mr Conway was suspended from the Commons for ten days and required to repay £13,000 of the money.

In at number three – It’s ‘Sir’ Mark Thatcher – In 2005 he plead guilty over his involvement in an alleged coup plot in Equatorial Guinea. The son of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was fined the equivalent of US$500,000 (£265,000) and given a four-year suspended jail term. Sir Mark denied any knowledge of the plot, and agreed a plea bargain and will now co-operate with investigators. He admitted breaking anti-mercenary legislation in South Africa by agreeing to finance a helicopter. The businessman said he did not initially know the helicopter’s alleged purpose – that it was to be used in the alleged coup attempt, instead believing it was to be used as an air ambulance. But in his plea bargain statement, Sir Mark says he came to realise the helicopter was to be used for mercenary activities before the deal was finalised.[3]

And at NUMBER two – the case of Union Carbide in Bhopal–

The events surrounding the tragedy at Bhopal, India, provide a good case study of how capitalist enterprises can be supported by the state on a global scale. Union Carbide, an American owned multi-national company, set up a pesticide plant in Bhopal. In 1984, the plant accidentally leaked deadly gas fumes into the surrounding atmosphere. The leakage resulted in over 2,000 deaths and numerous poisonous related illnesses including blindness. Investigations since have revealed that the company set up this particular plant because pollution controls in India were less rigid than in the USA. In Snider’s terms (1993), the Indian State supported such capitalist development in the interests of allowing profits to be made. Marxists would point out that there have been no criminal charges despite the high death and injury toll. They would see the company owners as the true criminals in this scenario. Killed more than 3000 people and caused permanent injury to a further 20 000. The escape of gas was caused by inadequate safety procedures at the plant. No criminal charges have as yet been brought against the plant although it has agreed to pay 470 million dollars in compensation.

The Good Thinking Society, a charity which campaigns against pseudo-science has recently reported Gwneth Paltrow’s Goop to UK watchdogs, because it believes some of the wellness products the site sells are actually harmful.

Probably the best example of this is a product called ‘The Mother Load’ which lists 110% of the recommended daily value of vitamin A, a vitamin which, according to UK health organisations can actually be harmful if taken in high doses.

Relevance to A-level sociology 

Firstly, Goop is a great example of a postmodern New Age Spirituality. It’s mission is to sell products which promote well-being, and ‘inner peace’. Basically, stressed out women go to Goop to buy nice things and achieve ‘inner peace’.

Gwyneth seems to think there’s nothing wrong with this: I mean why would she: she’s a right woman living in the first world whose pumped her money into a feel good business. I bet her pseudo-spiritual products make her feel pretty good!

However, on balance I think this is a good example of just how the The New Age isn’t really religious at all – it’s just wealthy people buying goods and services to make themselves feel better – it’s basically consumerism!

The material above is a good example of how science and religion can come into direct conflict.

Item B

Berger (1990) argues that religion once provided a ‘shared universe of meaning’ and was used by people to make sense of the world, and to give their lives focus and order. He refers to religion as a ‘sacred canopy’, stretching over society and helping people to cope with the uncertainties of life.

Other sociologists disagree about the role that religion fulfils in society today. Marxists, for example, argue that religion acts to dull the pain of oppression experienced by the working class under capitalism and to conceal domination by the bourgeoisie. Some feminists argue that religion oppresses or disadvantages women.

Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the view that religion no longer acts as a ‘shared universe of meaning’ for people today.

Decode

• This is a relatively straightforward question if you take it as a ‘consensus versus conflict’ essay.
• You could also throw in elements of postmodernisation and secularization.
• And counter criticize (kind of) from a globalist perspective.

Supporting evidence from Functionalism

• Durkheim’s argued that religion reinforces the ‘collective conscience’ by representing the social order.
• Malinowski argued religious rituals helped the Trobriand Islanders deal with risky situations with uncertain outcomes (such as deep sea rather than lagoon fishing)
• He also argued religious rituals help people cope with social change, such as when people die.
• Parsons seems to be the main man who agreed with Berger: the main function of religion was to help people make sense of contradictory events.
• In one sense you could say that religion forms the basis of the law and this provides a shared universe of meaning.

Other supporting evidence drawn from across the syllabus

• It’s unlikely that anything other than religion can provide a ‘sacred canopy’ (Science doesn’t provide all of the answers to ‘big questions’ for example)
• Goddess religions could be interpreted as forming a ‘sacred canopy’ – one ‘divine reality, but many paths to it’.
• This seems to be more the case for older rather than younger people (older people are more religious)
• Some newer religions might be providing a more ‘general’ sacred canopy… for example ecumenicalism and The New Age movement.
• Giddens argues that religion today provides a vital role in answering big questions and providing moral purpose

Marxism/ Feminism

• Criticize the idea of a ‘shared universe of meaning’ because religion works in the interest of elite groups.
• It’s the meaning of the elite that is taught through religion – such as the idea that inequality is God’s will and cannot be changed.
• Neo-Marxism and Feminist resistance against elitist and patriarchal religions are evidence against this.

Postmodernisation/ Increasing diversity of religion means there is no sacred canopy

• The increasing diversity of religion with postmodernity suggests there is no ‘shared universe of meaning’.
• Religion has become more about ‘me’, less about aligning with society, e.g. the New Age Movement.
• Religion has become more about entertainment, thus is arguably no ‘deeper’ than Disneyland.

Secularisation/ growth of science means there is no sacred canopy

• Secularization is further evidence against – fewer people believe in God.
• It’s more likely that belief in science, rather than religion provides a ‘sacred canopy’.

Examples of religious conflicts

• Fundamentalism
• World Rejecting NRMs

Thoughts on a conclusion

Pick up on the different ‘functions’ in the item to write a differentiated conclusion… maybe religion doesn’t provide a ‘shared universe of meaning’ any more, but maybe it’s still used selectively by people some of the time to deal with uncertainties.

A level sociology text books seem to focus on four theorists of postmodernity and religion: Giddens, Bauman, Heelas and Lyon. This post is a bare bones summary of what they say about how religion changes to ‘fit’ postmodernity.

Anthony Giddens: High Modernity and Religion 

There has been a religious revival in high modernity according to Anthony Giddens.

Giddens argues the shift to late modernity has created what he calls ontological insecurity. We are uncertain about the nature of society and our relation to it, because of constant change.

Giddens argues religion can help us deal with this sense of uncertainty. Religion provides answers to life’s big questions and can give us moral direction.

Zygmunt Bauman: Postmodernity and Religion

Bauman’s view on the nature of religion in postmodern society is similar to Giddens’ .

All external sources of moral guidance have been abolished in postmodern society. For example politics and science are no longer sources of certainty and no longer provide reliable guidance for how we should live our lives.

Religions increasingly try to fill this morality gap by claiming that they are moral experts.

David Lyon: Jesus in Disneyland 

In Jesus in Disneyland Lyons argues the shift to postmodernity means the rise of consumer culture and religions have adapted to this.

People now expect a choice of religion and to be able to use it selectively in their lives.

Traditional religions are thus unable to impose norms on people and people expect a choice.

Paul Heelas: Postmodernity and The New Age Movement

The New age movement seems to fit postmodern society. It appears individualistic, allows choice and accepts diversity.

However if you drill down, many New Age practitioners believe they have found the truth. In fact, the New Age is a metanarrative.

Signposting

This material is relevant to the Beliefs in Society module. This post has been written because postmodern theories of religion are nuanced.

To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com

In modernity, ethics was simply a matter of following a set of prescribed rules already laid down by institutions such as the state. In effect, for most of modernity, individual responsibility was abolished: all one had to do to be a ‘good citizen’ was to adopt the relevant social norms according to their class/ gender/ ethnicity and obey the law.

However, postmodernity has abolished all of these external rules, and morality has become a matter of personal choice: morality has becomes privatized.

In modernity, individuals tended to have ‘life-projects’: they wanted to achieve things with their lives, to reach certain goals, which had typically been laid down by society.

In postmodernity, individuals are more concerned with a process of self-constitution: rather than achieving things, they want to ‘be somebody’. They are more concerned with getting noticed, being visible to others, but still individually responsible for every aspect of their individual identity.

According to Bauman, now that individuals find themselves responsible for their own self-identities, they increasingly turn to ‘experts in morality’ for guidance about ‘how to be’. In this context, religious leaders are in greater demand because they are one set of ‘morality’ experts who people might call upon for ethical guidance.