www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
N 1 www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in1
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE (2014-2015)
M.S.O.-1 Socioligical Theories and Concepts Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions given in the Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are prepared by Private Teacher/Tutors/Auhtors for the help and Guidance of the student to get an idea of how he/she can answer the Questions of the Assignments. We do not claim 100% Accuracy of these sample Answers as these are based on the knowledge and cabability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample answers may be seen as the Guide/Help Book for the reference to prepare the answers of the Question given in the assignment. As these solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied. Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though every care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/ Solutions. Please consult your own Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a Particular Answer & for uptodate and exact information, data and solution. Student should must read and refer the official study material provided by the university. SECTION – I Q. 1. Explain the relationship between theory and paradigm. Ans. The concept of scientific paradigm and particularly the sociological paradigm, is closely connected to sociological theories. If we assume that a scientific paradigm represents a general hypothesis of scientific knowledge, a general knowledge which can be presented both as a practical one and as a specific matrix of scientific research, then we can talk about a wider and more exact system of views, attitudes and theories concerning the scientific explanation of objective reality. In its widest meaning, a scientific paradigm is ‘a set of facts and convictions which is systematically presented, that is presented as a theory whose function is to initiate theoretical productions, and practical research in certain fields thereafter, so that it appears in this sense as a source of some future or already existing theoretical composition.” In accordance with that, a sociological paradigm represents a fundamental illustration of the society (the definition of its concept, the comprehension of its structure and dynamics) which has been more or less accepted in the association of sociologists during certain periods of this science development. The sociological paradigm performs significant functions in a qualitative sociological analysis. According to Merton, at least five functions of a paradigm in sociology may be specified: (a) the function of defining concepts, (b) the function of decreasing the probability of unconscious introduction of latent assumptions and concepts, (c) the function of cumulating theoretical interpretations, (d) the function of concept systematization, and, (e) the function of qualitative analysis codification. The first function of the paradigm in sociology is to provide precision in designating the central concepts of a sociological analysis, and it can almost be compared to the significance and functions of mathematical symbols in natural sciences. Moreover, the paradigm implies logical concept derivation from previously clearly defined concepts. The cumulation of theoretical interpretations in a sociological paradigm enables new theoretical attitudes to be derived from and supported by the previous ones, producing a coherent theoretical structure. In case the fundamental paradigm assumptions are weak, new theoretical statements cannot withstand theoretical and empirical verification. Paradigms may nitiate the systematization of significant concepts, as well as point out the need of empirical and theoretical investigation of certain problems. Paradigms also contribute to certain codification and unification of procedures in partial and global researches. In this respect, in the framework of sociology we may find the old sociological paradigm and the new sociological paradigm, which mutually differ with regard to the theories, methods and instruments applied in learning about the social totality. Professor Miroslav Pecujlic is of the opinion that the old (classical) sociological paradigm pervaded classical sociological theories and so called objectivistic theories (positivism, functionalism, system theories, structuralism). The statements and attitudes of a classical sociological paradigm are predominant in them, particularly the conceptions of linear progress and historical determinism, mechanical comprehension of the universe, idealized image of the society in the centre of which are order, harmony, non-conflicting, and in which the conflicts, social struggles, force and domination, social changes, discontinuity, great obsession of theory by apology and governing system preservation, dominance of system over personality, limited picture of historical actors, are either excluded or less discussed.
N 2
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in2
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
A new sociological paradigm is created on completely new assumptions and knowledge, such as the openness of history, entropic comprehension of the world (a danger of the planet destruction), the beginning of an era of great cultural transformations, mutual permeance of social processes of continuity and discontinuity, the necessity of free human actions development, the appearance of new agents of social changes, the beginning of social movements, the outset of new factors of social dynamics. Alongside with that, a new sociological paradigm organically originates from the critical and creative meditation of previous systems of thought in the science of sociology. “The first step in a large revitalization of sociology lies, then, in the synthesis, in supplementation of mutually exclusive streams: a modern system theory, critical theories of the society, theories of radical changes (dialectics), as well as in the apprehension of social phenomena as the phenomena with certain meanings. Comparative investigation of objective circumstances and subjective motives, observation of the phenomenon in the system frame, but of more profound changes as well, critical examination of the existent and also of the desirable and possible future (alternative)–all of that provides incomparably more powerful intellectual instruments for the understanding of the new, more complex world that is being formed. Yet, it gives much more, in fact. A new sociological paradigm, critical interpretation and comprehension of existing and search for more rational social life forms, and a desirable and possible future, have become a decisive factor of great cultural transformations brought into focus by history.” In this manner, sociology is actively included into the modern civilization courses, it observes and analyses contemporary society and establishes itself as a modern science. “A true history of sociological theory has to exceed by evidence the chronologically arranged disquisition set; it has to deal with interrelations between the theory and other items, like the social origin and status of its exponents, a variable social organization of sociology, changes of the ideas brought about by their expanding, and the relations of ideas toward the surrounding social and cultural structure.” Being that sociology is a multi-paradigmatic science (Ritzer), and we can agree with that, in a sociological explanation we should also take into consideration the verified data of various theories and paradigms developed in its scope. In this respect, the research of the social structure in modern society, for example, demands the application of both social class and stratification theories, which may cover the research subject more complexly if combined in use. Ritzer’s paradigms may in this sense be understood as complementary and not exclusive and mutually independent paradigms. Namely, although the paradigm of social facts, paradigm of social definitions and social-behavioural paradigm differ in their contents, their statements are respected in modern sociology. Q. 2. Discuss the concept of social reality in the context of symbolic universe. Ans. Social Reality and The Symbolic Universe: Reality is socially defined and it is human beings and human groups that define its contours. The specialists in a society provide complete legitimation of the social reality. There can be differences of view and opinion between the experts and the laymen. Hence, there is a kind of competition on whose definitions and concepts are going to be beneficial and become operative in social interaction going on in society. There are different ways of apprehending and perceiving social process. The best course of action depends on the ideology which is invoked to explain any aspect of the symbolic universe that has become the area of concern, ego, societal conflict over the distribution of resources. The ideology giving benefit to the individual is selected by him. The phrase ‘social construction of reality’ was used in 1966 by Peter Berger and T. Luckmann. The term social construction of reality refers to the theory that the way we present ourselves to other people is shaped partly by our interactions with others, as well as by our life experiences. How we were raised and what we were raised to believe affect how we present ourselves, how we perceive others, and how others perceive us. In short, our perceptions of reality are coloured by our beliefs and backgrounds. Our reality is also a complicated negotiation. What is real depends on what is socially acceptable. Most social interactions involve some acceptance of what’s going on. While we participate in the construction of reality, it’s not entirely a product of our own doing. Social construction of reality is an aspect of many micro-interpretive perspectives in sociology and must be understood as a contrast to positivistic and structural sociology. Rejecting the notion that events or social phenomena have an independent and objective existence, they examine the methods that members of society use to create or construct reality. Durkheim, for example was a positivist and a structuralist and argued that suicide had an objective existence, independent of himself and others. That is, there was something about the way of death that constituted something as a suicide. An advocate of the social construction of reality perspective would argue that suicide is just a label for a death and is constituted, or created, by the accounts that people like police, family, or coroners give of the death. Our accounting methods then construct reality rather than there being some independent reality which we can describe or explain.
N 3
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in3
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
Q. 3. What is Power? Discuss the instruments of power. Ans. Concept of power:Social relationship, the concept of power can be understood viz-a-viz. two persons groups since one individual group exercises power in relation to another one. The resistance of disobey of power results in punishment. Those having resources at their disposal are powerful. According to Coser (1982), there are two major traditions regarding power: (i) one which focuses on power as the imposition of the will (e.g. in the writings of Weber) and (ii) one which focuses on power as a resource at the disposal of collectivities (e.g. in the works of Parsons). One may think that a physically strong person welds power and commands while the weak doesn’t weld power and obeys the strong. However, it is not the physical strength but the resource at hand which is considered in sociological literature. According to Gerth and Mills (1953), power in itself is simply the probability that one person will act as an another person wishes. A comprehensive definition can be found in Dennis Wrong (1968) who says, “if an actor is believed to be powerful, if he knows that others hold such a belief, and if he encourages it and resolves to make use of it by intervening in or punishing actions by others who do not comply with his wishes, then he truly has power and this power has indeed been conferred upon him by the attributions, perhaps initially without foundation, of others.” Let us now distinguish the concept of power from other related concepts: (a) Power and Authority: With authority comes power. Power is the ability to influence people toward organizational objectives. However, you have limits on your authority and power. In conjunction with your authority, you use power to influence others toward the accomplishment of command goals. You can use power for personal gain or for the good of the organization. However, if your subordinates believe, you use power for personal gain, you will soon suffer an erosion of that power. On the other hand, if subordinates believe you use power to accomplish the organizational goals, your power to influence them will become stronger. Your power will also become stronger when you share it through delegation of authority. (b) Power and Prestige: According to E.A. Ross (1916), prestige is the immediate cause of location of power. However, one must remember that it is power which gives prestige to a per….. and not the other way round. (c) Power and Influence: While power commands obedience and submission, influence is persuasive power is accompanied by sanctions while influence is not. Newton had influence, but not power, a policeman has power, but no influence, but the prime investor has. (d) Power and Dominance: We can observe that power exists and expresses itself in intergroup relations. The status that people occupy in formal organiztaion is very closely related to power whereas dominance is associated with one’s personality and may be treated as a psychological concept. Compared to dominance, power is associated with the structure of society (Bierstedt, 1982). Thus, power and dominance though closely related are different concepts. Instruments of Power: Power can be enforced by three main instruments— coercive or condign, compensatory and conditioned power. These instruments may sometime overlap. The power that wins acceptance by threatening, intimidating others with dire consequences. Coercive power can be understood at two levels—a situation in which a person or a group who undergo a very painful experience in absence of the alternative; and a situation in which the person or group just accepts the dictation of others and do not speak up because of the impending consequences. Comparing Condign and Compensatory Power Both condign and compensatory power are objective and visible. Persons or groups accepting the will of others are conscious about their act and are acting out of deliberate calculation as a better course of action. Those exercising the power are also purposefully aware of what they are doing. However, the difference between condign and compensatory power is the difference between negative and affirmative reward. Condign power threatens the physical or emotional pain while compensatory offers the individual a reward or payment sufficiently advantageous. (Galbraith, 1984) The conditioned power is subjective and neither the exerciser of the power or those upon whom power is excercised are aware of its exertion. In situation the attitude and belief of the individual or group is changed. By way of education, commitment or persuasion the initiative seems to be right. This kind of power is very pervasive and the crucial for the functioning of the modern society. SECTION – II Q. 4. What is sovereignty? Discuss the difference between internal and external soverrignty. Ans. We may find the core of the concept of sovereignty in the definition of Hinsley who defines it as “the idea that there is a final and absolute political authority in the political community … and that no final and absolute authority exists
N 4
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in4
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
elsewhere. Sovereignty is the chief characteristic of the state. It is essentially a juristic concept implying supreme and final power. In every state there is a sovereign body endowed with supreme power to translate in legal terms the ‘Will’ of the state. This sovereign body may be a person or a body of persons. Its ‘Will’ is binding over all individuals and associations within its confines. In case of conflict between persons inter se or associations inter, the sovereign body is the referee and the final arbiter. It adjusts and harmonises the conflicting claims of different individuals and associations. Hence, sovereignty is synonymous with final, absolute and unlimited power. There is no legal limit to sovereignty. The state exercises its sovereign power either through force or consent or, very often, through a blending of both. The nature of application of the sovereign power primarily depends upon the structure of the state and the nature and dimension of political mobilisation. In an authoritarian state, the governing class has a tendency to glorify the role of force, its power is not derived from the consent of the governed. But in a democratic state which operates through choice and discussion, the role of force is greatly reduced. Law, in a democratic state, is supposed to represent an active public opinion, and hence, the popular acquies-cence in it is likely to be broad-based. Internal Sovereignty: Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy by what right does a political body (or individual) exercise authority over its subjects? Possible answers include, by the divine right of kings or by social contract (popular sovereignty). Much of modern political theory tries to decide precisely where sovereignty should be located. For example, early thinkers like Machiavelli, Bodin and Hobbes want that it should be vested in the hands of a single monarch. The biggest merit of vesting sovereignty in a single individual was that sovereignty would then be indivisible. However, Locke, Rousseau and many other later thinkers departed from this absolutist notion and believed that ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves. In modern democratic theory, this doctrine of popular sovereignty forms the basis of sovereignty. Locating Sovereignty: The representative and constitutional governments that were formed in the West and later in other parts of the world assumed different forms following the English and the French Revolutions in 1688 and 1789, respectively. Locating sovereignty was, however, difficult. John Austin found that it is sovereignty is neither vested in the Crown nor in the people, but in the ‘Monarch in Parliament’. Today in democratic states, sovereignty resides in the state or political community as a whole. Now there are so many checks and balances in democratic states and the internal and external constraints. This condition makes the issue about the precise location of sovereignty obsolete. More apparopriately, it is the external sovereignty which has become more important. External Sovereignty: As viewed from inside a state, sovereignty is supreme authority and as viewed is self-governing authority. Alternatively, external sovereignty the state’s place in the international order and therefore to its independence in relation to other states of the world. In the modern times, sovereignty, international relations, has become synonymous with state useful to conceive of external sovereignty as constitutional. The state possesses a constitution, written or unwritten, otherwise, which makes it independent from other states. It is the sovereign state which has the exclusive jurisdiction over its territory, its occupants, resources events that take place in that particular state. Westphalian International Society :Two principles formed the basis of Westphalian international society. The first was rex est imperotor in regno suo meaning the king is emperor in his own, This norm specifies that sovereigns are not subjects to any higher political authority. Every king is independent and equal to every other king. The society’s second principle was cujus region, ejus religio which meant that the ruler determines the religion of his realm. It specifies that outsiders have no right to intervene in a sovereign jurisdiction on religious grounds for any reason. Q. 5. What is modernity? Discuss Giddens’ Ans. What is Modernity?: In sociology, the discipline that arose in response to the social problems of ‘modernity’ (Harriss 2000, 325), the term denotes the social processes and discourses consequent to the Age of Enlightenment (18th c.), especially defined by ‘rationalization’: “The term refers to processual aspects, especially tensions and dynamics. Modernity is thus a particular kind of time consciousness, which defines the present, in its relation to the past, which must be continuously recreated; it is not a historical epoch that can be periodized” (Delanty, 2007). At its simplest, modernity is a shorthand term for modern society, or industrial civilization. Portrayed in more detail, it is associated with (i) a certain set of attitudes towards the world, the idea of the world as open to transformation, by human intervention; (ii) a complex of economic institutions, especially industrial production and a market economy; (iii) a certain range of political institutions, including the nation-state and mass democracy. Largely as a result of these characteristics, modernity is vastly more dynamic than any previous type of social order. It is a society – more technically, a
N 5
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in5
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
complex of institutions – which, unlike any preceding culture, lives in the future, rather than the past. (Giddens 1998, 94) Modernity describes “the loss of certainty, and the realization that certainty can never be established, once and for all. It is a term that also can simply refer to reflection on the age, and, in particular, to movements within modern society that lead to the emergence of new modes of thought and consciousness” (Delanty, 2007). Sociologically, modernity aimed towards “a progressive force promising to liberate humankind from ignorance and irrationality” (Rosenau 1992, 5), yet Theodor Adorno and Zygmunt Bauman proposed that modernity commonly represents departure from the central tenets of the Enlightenment, and towards nefarious processes of alienation, such as commodity fetishism and the holocaust (Adorno 1973; Bauman 1989). Consequent to contemporary debate about economic globalization, the comparative analysis of civilisations, and the post-colonial perspective of ‘alternative modernities’, Shmuel Eisenstadt introduced the concept of ‘multiple modernities’. Modernity as a ‘plural condition’ is the central concept of this sociologic approach and perspective, which broadens the definition of ‘modernity’ – from exclusively denoting Western European culture – to a cosmopolitan definition, thereby: ‘Modernity is not Westernization, and its key processes and dynamics can be found in all societies’ (Delanty, 2007). Giddens’ recent work has been concerned with the question of what is characteristic about social institutions in various points of history. Giddens agrees that there are very specific changes that mark our current era, but argues that it is not a ‘post-modern era’, but just a ‘radicalised modernity era’, produced by the extension of the same social forces that shaped the previous age. Giddens nonetheless differentiates between pre-modern, modern and late (high) modern societies and doesn’t dispute that important changes have occurred but takes a neutral stance towards those changes, saying that it offers both unprecedented opportunities and unparalleled dangers. He also stresses that we haven’t really gone beyond modernity. It’s just a developed, detraditionalized, radicalized, ‘late’ modernity. Thus the phenomena that some have called ‘post-modern’ are to Giddens nothing more than the most extreme instances of a developed modernity. Along with Ulrich Beck and Scott Lash, he endorses the term reflexive modernization as a more accurate description of the processes associated with the second modernity, since it opposes itself (in its earlier version) instead of opposing traditionalism, endangering the very institutions it created (such as the national state, the political parties or the nuclear family). Giddens concentrates on a contrast between traditional (pre-modern) culture and post-traditional (modern) culture. In traditional societies, individual actions are not matters that have to be extensively considered and thought about, because available choices are already predetermined (by the customs, traditions, etc.). In contrast, in post-traditional society people (actors, agents) are much less concerned with the precedents set by previous generations, and options are at least as open as the law and public opinion will allow. Therefore, individual actions now require much more analysis and thought before they are taken. Society becomes much more reflexive and aware, something Giddens is fascinated with, illustrating it with examples ranging from formal government at one end of the scale to intimate sexual relationships at the other. Giddens examines three realms in particular– the experience of identity, connections of intimacy and political institutions. The most defining property of modernity, according to Giddens, is that we are disembedded from time and space. In pre-modern societies, space was the area in which one moved, time was the experience one had while moving. In modern societies, however, the social space is no longer confined by the boundaries set by the space in which one moves. One can now imagine what other spaces look like, even if he has never been there. In this regard, Giddens talks about virtual space and virtual time. Another distinctive property of modernity lies in the field of knowledge. In pre-modern societies, it was the elders who possessed the knowledge–they were definable in time and space. In modern societies we must rely on expert systems. These are not present in time and space, but we must trust them. Even if we trust them, we know that something could go wrong: there’s always a risk we have to take. Also the technologies which we use, and which transform constraints into means, hold risks. Consequently, there is always a heightened sense of uncertainty in contemporary societies. It is also in this regard that Giddens uses the image of a ‘juggernaut’– modernity is said to be like an unsteerable juggernaut travelling through space. Humanity tries to steer it, but as long as the modern institutions, with all their uncertainty, endure, we will never be able to influence its course. The uncertainty can however be managed, by ‘re-embedding’ the expert-systems into the structures which we are accustomed to. Another characteristic is enhanced reflexivity, both at the level of individuals and at the level of institutions. The latter requires an explanation: in modern institutions there is always a component which studies the institutions themselves for the purpose of enhancing its effectiveness. This enhanced reflexivity was enabled as language became increasingly abstract with the transition from pre-modern to modern societies, becoming institutionalised into universities. It is
N 6
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in6
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
also in this regard that Giddens talks about “double hermeneutica”: every action has two interpretations. The one is from the actor himself, the other of the investigator who tries to give meaning to the action he is observing. The actor who performs the action, however, can get to know the interpretation of the investigator, and therefore change his own interpretation, or his further line of action. This is the reason that positive science, according to Giddens, is never possible in the social sciences: every time an investigator tries to identify causal sequences of action, the actors can change their further line of action. The problem is, however, that conflicting viewpoints in social science result in a disinterest of the people. For example, when scientist don’t agree about the greenhouse–effect, people will withdraw from that arena, and negate that there is a problem. Therefore, the more the sciences expand, the more incertitude there is in the modern society. In this regard, the juggernaut even gets more steerless. ■■
N 7 www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in
www.ignou-ac.in7
