Assess the view that the process of globalisation has led to changes in both the amount of crime and the types of crime committed

Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of societies, so that what happens in one locality is shaped by distant events and vice versa. Globalisation has many causes including spread if information communication technology, the global mass media, cheap flights, deregulation of markets and easy movements of businesses.

Held et al argues there’s been globalisation of crime; an increasing interconnectedness of crime across national borders. The same process that brought globalisation of legitimate activities has also brought the spread of transnational organised crime. Globalisation creates new opportunities for crime and new means of committing crime, for example cyber crime. Manuel Castells (1998) argues because of globalisation there is a globalised criminal economy worth £1 trillion. This takes a number of forms such as arms dealing, human trafficking, green crime and many others. The global criminal economy has both a demand and supply side. A reason for scale of transnational organised crime is demand from the rich west. However the global criminal economy couldn’t survive without a supply side that provides the source for demands of the west, such as drugs and prostitutes. This supply is linked to the globalisation process. For example third world drug producing countries such as Columbia have large populations of impoverished peasants. For them drug investment is attractive; it’s simple to produce and commands high prices. In Columbia, 20% of peasants rely on cocaine production for their livelihood; cocaine out sells all other exports. Thus to understand drug crime we cannot focus only on countries where drugs are consumed.

Globalisation creates new insecurities and produces a new mentality of risk consciousness where risk is global rather than isolated. For example rise in economic migrants has led to concerns of risk of disorder and increasing need to protect borders. Much knowledge of risks comes from the media which often exaggerates dangers we face. For example with immigration the media create moral panics of supposed threats, often fuelled by politicians. Negative coverage of immigrants has led to hate crimes against minorities in European countries. One result is the intensification of social control at the national level. The UK has toughened borders; there is now no limit as to how long a person may be held in immigration detention. Other European states with land borders have introduced fences to prevent illegal crossings. Another result of globalised risk is increased international cooperation in various wars on drugs, terrorism ect, particularly since terrorist attacks off September 11^th, 2001.

Socialist Ian Taylor (1997) argues globalisation has led to changes in the pattern and extent of crime. By giving free rein to market forces globalisation has created greater inequality and rising crime. Globalisation has created crime at both ends of the social spectrum. It has allowed transnational corporations to switch manufacturing to low wage countries, producing job insecurity, unemployment and poverty. Deregulation means government has little control over their own economies, for example to create jobs or raise taxes while state spending on welfare has declined. Marketisation encourages people to see themselves as individual consumers and undermining social cohesion. Left realists argue increasingly materialistic culture promoted by the global media portrays success in terms of lifestyle of consumption. All these factors create insecurity and widening inequality that encourage people, especially the poor to commit crime. The lack of legitimate opportunity destroys self respect and drives the unemployed to look for illegitimate ones such as the drugs trade. At the same time globalisation creates criminal opportunities for elite groups on a grand scale. For example deregulation of financial markets creates opportunity for movement of funds across the globe to avoid taxation. Similarly the creation of transnational bodies such as the European Union offers opportunities for fraudulent claims for subsidies; estimated to be $7 billion per annum. Globalisation has led to new patterns in employment which create new opportunities for crime. It has led to increased use of subcontracting to recruit flexible workers, often working illegally for less than minimum wage. Taylor’s theory is useful in linking global trends in the capitalist economy to changes in the patterns of crime. However it does not adequately explain the changes make people behave in criminal ways. For example not all the poor turn to crime.

Hobbs and Dunningham found that the way crime is organised is linked to economic changes brought by globalisation. It increasingly involves individuals with contracts acting as a hub around which a loose knit network forms, composed of other individuals seeking opportunities and linking legitimate and illegitimate activities. Hobbs and Dunningham argues this contrasts with large scale, hierarchical mafia style criminal organisation of the past, such as the Kray brothers of east London.

These new forms of organisation sometimes have international links, especially with the drugs trade, but crime is still rooted in its local context. For example individuals still need local contacts and networks to find opportunities and to sell their drugs. Hobbs and Dunningham thus conclude crime works as a “glocal” system; it’s locally based but with global connections. This means the form it takes varies from place to place, according to local conditions, even if influenced by global factors such as availability of drugs from abroad. Hobbs and Dunningham argue that changes associated with globalisation have led to changes in patterns of crime, for example the shift from a hierarchical gang structure to loose flexible networks. However it’s not clear that such patterns are new, nor that have the older structures disappeared. It may be the two have always coexisted. Conclusions may not be generalisable to other criminal activities elsewhere.

Misha Glenny (2008) looks at the relationship between globalisation and criminal organisation in “McMafia”; the organisations emerging from Russia and Eastern Europe following the fall of communism. Glenny traces origins of transnational organised crime to the breakup of the Soviet Union after 1989 which coincided with deregulation of global markets. Under communism the soviet state regulated prices of everything. However following the fall of communism, the Russian government deregulated most sectors of the economy except for national resources such as oil. These commodities remained at their old soviet price, often a fraction of the world market price. Thus anyone with access to funds, such as former KGB men, could buy up resources like oil cheaply. By selling them abroad for huge profits they became Russia’s new capitalist class, known as the oligarchs. Meanwhile the collapse of communist states heralded a period of increasing disorder. To protect wealth capitalists turned to mafias that began to spring up. These were often alliances between ex KGB and convicts. Among the most ruthless were the Chechen mafia. However these mafias were unlike the old Italian mafias which were based on family ties with a clear hierarchy. The new Russian organisations were purely economic organisations formed to pursue self interest. For example the Chechen mafia, originated in Chechnya franchised operations to non Chechen groups. Chechen mafia became a brand sold to other protection rackets so long as they carried their word, otherwise the brand would be damaged. With the assistance of violent organisations the billionaires protected their wealth and found a means to move it out of the country. Criminal organisations were vital to the entry of the new Russian capitalist class in the world economy. At the same time the Russian mafias were able to build links with criminal organisations with other parts in the world.

Green or environmental crime can be defined as crime against the environment. Much green crime is linked by globalisation and increasing interconnectedness of societies. Regardless of the division of the world into separate nation states, the planet is a single eco system and threats to the eco system are increasingly global rather than local. For example atmospheric pollution from industry in one country can turn to acid rain that falls in another country, poisoning rivers. Similarly accidents in nuclear industry, such as in Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 can spread radioactive material over thousands of miles, showing how a problem in one locality can have worldwide effects.

Most threats to human well being and the eco system are now human made rather than natural. Unlike past natural dangers such as famine the risks we face today are our own making. Ulrich Beck (1992) argues in today’s late modern society we can provide adequate resources for all. However an increase in productivity and technology that sustains it creates new manufactured risks; dangers we have never faced before. Many of these risks involve harm to environment and its consequences for humanity such as global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Like climate change many of these risks are global rather than local in nature, leading Beck to describe late modern society as global risk society.

There’s the question of legality in green criminology. Traditional criminology has not been concerned with such behaviour, since its subject matter is defined by the criminal law, and no law has been broken. The starting point for this approach is the national and international laws and regulators concerning the environment. For example Situ and Emmons (2000) define environmental crime as an unauthorized act that violates the law. Like other traditional approaches in criminology it investigates patterns and causes of law breaking. The advantage of this approach is it clearly defines subject matter. However it is criticised for accepting official definitions of environmental problems and crimes which are often shaped by powerful groups such as big business to serve their own interests. Green criminology takes a more radical approach. It starts from the notion of harm rather than criminal law. For example Rob White (2008) argues the proper subject of criminology is any action that harms the physical environment or human and non human animals within it, even if no law has been broken. In fact many environmental crimes are not illegal thus the subject matter of green criminology is wider than that of traditional criminology. Thus green criminology is a transgressive criminology; overstepping bounds of traditional criminology to include new issues. Furthermore different countries have different laws, thus harmful action in one country may not be a crime in the other. Thus legal definitions cannot provide a consistent standard of harm since they’re the product of individual nation states and their political processes. Thus by moving away from the legal definition green criminology can develop a global perspective on environmental harm. This approach is like the Marxist view of crimes of the powerful. Marxists argue the capitalist class are able to shape the law and define crime so that their own exploitative activities are not criminalised, or where they are to ensure enforcement is weak. Similarly green criminologists argue powerful interests; especially nation states and transnational corporations are able to define in their own interests what counts as unacceptable environmental harm.

In general nation states and transnational corporations adopt what White (2008) calls an anthropocentric or human centred view of environmental harm. This view assumes humans have a right to dominate nature for their own ends and puts economic growth before the environment. White contrasts this with an ecocentric view that sees humans and their environment as interdependent, so that environmental harm hurts humans also. This view sees both humans and environment as liable to exploitation, particularly by global capitalism. In general green criminology adopts the ecocentric view as the basis for judging environmental harm.

Green criminologist Nigel South (2008) classifies green crime into primary and secondary types. Primary green crimes are crimes that result directly from the destruction and degradation of the earth’s resources. South identifies four main types of primary deviance. Crimes of air pollution; burning fossil fuels from industry and transport contributes to global warming. The potential criminals are governments, business and consumers. Crimes of deforestation; for example crops destroyed by pesticide and illegal logging. Criminals include the state and big business. Crimes of species and animal rights; many species are under threat and there is trafficking in animals and animal parts. Meanwhile old crimes such as dog fights are on the increase. Crimes of water pollution; unclean drinking water and marine pollution threaten humans and biodiversity. Criminals are business who dump toxic waste and governments who discharge untreated sewage.

Secondary green crime is crime that grows out of the flouting of rules aimed at preventing or regulating environmental disasters. For example governments often break their own regulations and cause environmental harms. An example is state violence against opposition groups. States condemn terrorism but then resort to the same methods themselves, for example in 1985 the French secret service blew up a green peace ship that protested against nuclear weapons testing in the pacific. Day (1991) argues any oppositional group to nuclear power are treated as enemies of the state. Another example is hazardous waste and organised crime. Disposal of toxic waste from the chemical and nuclear industries is highly profitable. Because of the high cost of legal disposal businesses seek to dispose of waste illegally. For example in Italy eco mafias benefit from dumping waste; much dumped at sea. Reece Walters (2007) argues the ocean floor has been a radioactive waste dump for decades. Illegal waste dumping often has a globalised character. For example Fred Bridgland (2006) describes how after the 2004 tsunami barrels of radioactive waste dumped by European countries washed up on beaches of Somalia. Elsewhere big business ships waste to the third world where costs are lower to dispose waste. Similarly transnational corporations may offload pharmaceuticals that have been banned in the west on grounds of safety onto the third world. Illegal waste disposal illustrates the problem of law enforcement in a globalised world. The very existence of laws to regulate waste disposal in developed countries pushes up costs to business and creates incentive to dump illegally in the third world. In some cases it’s not even illegal since less developed countries may lack necessary legislation to outlaw it.

Both strengths and weaknesses of green criminology arise from its focus on global environmental concerns. It recognises the importance of environmental issues and the need to address the harms and risks of environmental damage both to humans and animals. However by focusing on the broader concept of harms rather than legally defined crimes it’s hard to define boundaries of its field of study clearly. Defining these boundaries involves making moral or political statements about which actions ought to be regarded as wrong. Critics argue this is a matter of values and cannot be established objectively.

Marxist William Chambliss (1989) argues sociologists should investigate state organised crimes as well as crimes of capitalism. Penny Green and Tony Ward (2005) define state crime as illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by state agencies. It includes all forms of crime committed by or on behalf of states and governments in order to further policies. State crimes include genocide, wars, assassination ect. State crimes do not include acts that benefit individuals, for example accepting bribes. Eugene McLaughlin (2001) identifies four categories of state crime; Political crimes such as corruption or censorship, crimes by police such as torture, economic crimes such as violations of health and safety laws and social and cultural crimes such as institutional racism.

State crime is one of the most serious forms of crime. The power of the state enables it to commit large scale crimes with widespread victimisation. For example in 1975 its believed Pol pot’s government killed two million people. Michalowski and Kramer (2006) argue great power and great crimes are inseparable. The states monopoly of violence gives it the potential to inflict massive harm, while its power means it’s well placed to conceal its crimes or evade punishment for them. Although media attention is often on state crimes in the third world, democratic states such as Britain are guilty of military use of torture in Iraq. However the principle of national sovereignty, that states are the supreme authority within their own borders, makes it difficult for external authorities such as the United Nations to intervene. This is despite the existence of international conventions and laws against acts such as genocide, war crimes and racial discrimination. It is also the state’s role to define what is criminal and to manage the criminal justice system and prosecute offenders. State crimes undermine the system of justice. Its power to make the law also means it can avoid defining its own actions as harmful or criminal. For example in Nazi Germany the state created laws to sterilise the disabled. State control of the criminal justice system also means it can persecute its enemies.

One approach to the study of state crime is through the notion of human rights. There is no single list of what constitutes as human rights. However most definitions include the following; Natural rights that people are regarded having simply by virtue of existing, such as rights to life, liberty and free speech. Civil rights, such as the right to vote, privacy, to a fair trial or education. A right is an entitlement to something; as such it acts as a protection against the power of the state over an individual. For example the right to a fair trial means that the state may not imprison a person without due process of law.

Critical criminologists such as Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1970) argue we should define crime in terms of violation of human rights rather than breaking of legal rules. This means that states that deny individuals human rights must be regarded as criminal. For example states that practice imperialism, racism or sexism or inflict economic exploitation on citizens are committing crimes because they deny individuals and groups their basic rights. From a human rights perspective the state can be seen a perpetrator of crime and not simply the authority that defines and punishes crime. In this view the definition of crime is inevitably political. For example in the 1930s the Nazis attacked human rights of Jews legally by passing laws that persecuted them. If we accept a legal definition we risk becoming subservient to the state that makes the law. The Schwendingers’ argue that the sociologist’s role should be to defend human rights, if necessary against the state and its laws. Thus their views are an example of transgressive criminology as it oversteps traditional boundaries of criminology that are defined by the criminal law. However Stanley Cohen (2001) criticise the Schwendingers’ view. For example while gross violations of human rights such as genocide are clearly crimes, other acts such as economic exploitation is not self evidently criminal even if we find them morally unacceptable. Other critics argue there’s only limited agreement on what counts as human rights. For example while life is a human right, some would say freedom from poverty is not.

Although Cohen criticises the Schwendingers he nevertheless sees the issue of human rights and state crimes as increasingly central to both political debate and criminology as a result of two factors. One is the growing impact of the international human rights movement, for example through the work of organisations such as amnesty international. Another is the increased focus of criminology on victims.

Cohen looks at the ways states legitimate human rights crimes. He argues while dictatorships simply deny committing human rights abuses democratic states have to legitimate actions in more complex ways. In doing so their justifications follow a three stage spiral of denial. Stage one; “it didn’t happen”, for example the state claims there was no massacre. But then human rights organisations, victims and the media show it did happen with evidence. Stage two; if it did happen, “it” was something else. The state says it’s not what it looks like, “it was self defence”. Stage three; they try and justify their crimes, for example to “protect national security”.

Cohen examines ways in which states and their officials deny or justify their crimes. He draws on the work of Sykes and Matza (1957) who identify five neutralisation techniques that delinquents use to justify their deviant behaviour. Cohen shows how states use the same techniques when they are attempting to justify human rights violations such as torture. Denial of victim, they are terrorists”, Denial of injury; “they started it”, Denial of responsibility; “I was only obeying orders”, Condemning the condemners; “it’s worse elsewhere”, appeal to a higher loyalty “defending the free world”. These techniques do not seek to deny that the event has occurred. Cohen argues they seek to impose a different construction of events of what occurred.

It is often thought those who carry out crimes such as torture must be psychopaths; however research shows there is little psychological difference between them and normal people. Instead sociologists argue such actions are part of a role into which individuals are socialised. They focus on the social conditions in which such behaviour becomes acceptable. For example Kelman and Hamilton (1989) studied crimes of obedience such as the one at My Lai in Vietnam where soldiers murdered 400 civilians. Kelman and Hailton identify three features that produce crimes of obedience. Authorisation; when the acts are ordered or approved by those in authority, normal moral principles are replaced by the duty to obey. Routinisation; once the crime has been committed there is pressure to turn the act into routine which individuals can perform in a detached manner. Dehumanisation; when the enemy is portrayed as subhuman rather than human and described as animals where the usual principles of morality do not apply. Some argue modern society creates conditions for such crime on a vast scale. For example Zygmunt Bauman (1989) argues that the holocaust was a product of modernity, not a return to some premodern barbarism. Bauman argues for the Nazis to be able to commit mass murder many features of modernity were essential. These include science, technology and division of labour. He claims the key to understanding the holocaust is the ability of modern society to dehumanise the victims and turn mass murder into a routine administrative task.

Assess the different sociological approaches to suicide

Durkheim argues our behaviour is caused by social facts; social forces found in the structure of society. Steven Lukes (1992) argues social facts have three features; they’re external to individuals, they constrain individuals shaping their behaviour and they’re greater than individuals, they exist on a different level from the individual. Durkheim argues the suicide rate is a social fact. Using quantitative data from official statistics Durkheim analysed the suicide rate from various European countries. He noted four regular patterns. The suicide rate for any given society remained more or less constant over time. When the rates did change they coincided with other changes. For example rates fell during wartime, but rose during economic depression or prosperity. Different societies had different rates. Within a society the rates varies considerably between social groups. For example Catholics had lower rates than Protestants. For Durkheim these patterns were evidence that suicide rates couldn’t simply be the result of the motives of individuals. For example the population of the army constantly changes but the suicide rate remains the same. Instead of giving a psychological explanation Durkheim explains the suicide rate as the effect of social facts acting on the individual. In different societies these forces act with different degrees of intensity resulting in different suicide rates.

Durkheim identifies two social facts that determine the rate of suicide. Social integration refers to the extent an individual feels a sense of belonging to a group and obligation to its members. In highly integrated groups and societies individuals feel a strong bond with and sense of duty towards others. Moral regulation refers to the extent to which individual’s actions and desires are kept in check by norms and values. Durkheim argues without regulation by socially defined goals and rules individuals desires become infinite and incapable of satisfaction.

Durkheim argues suicide results from either too much or too little social integration. He creates a typology of suicide. Egoistic suicide is caused by too little social integration. Durkheim argues this is the most common type of suicide in modern society, caused by excessive individualism and lack of social ties and obligations to others. This explains the lower rate among Catholics than among Protestants. Both religions condemn suicide but Protestants have more individual freedom in what to believe and how to express their faith whereas Catholics are more tightly integrated by shared beliefs and collective rituals. Egoistic suicide is less common in times of war or political upheaval, since these create a stronger sense of belonging and common purpose.

Altruistic suicide is the opposite of egoistic suicide and is caused by too much social integration. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness or egoism and involves putting others before one’s self. Altruistic suicide occurs where the individual has little value and where the group’s interests override those of the individual. Suicide here is obligatory self sacrifice for the good of the group rather then something freely chosen since the individual feels it their duty to die. For example Hindu widows were expected to throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre so as not to burden their family.

Anomic suicide is caused by too little moral regulation. Anomie means normlessness and anomic suicide occurs where society’s values are made obsolete with rapid social change, creating uncertainty in individuals as to what society expects of them. For example the depression of the 1930s produced anomic suicides as well as times of economic boom. Durkheim attributes this to the fact that booms lead to expectations and desires rising more quickly than the means of fulfilling them.

Fatalistic suicide is the opposite of anomic suicide and is caused by too much moral regulation. Fatalism means a belief on the part of the individual that they can do nothing to affect their situation. Fatalistic suicide occurs where society regulates the individual completely. Slaves and prisoners most commonly commit fatalistic suicide.

Durkheim argues modern and traditional society differs in levels of integration and regulation, and this means that we tend to find different types of suicide in each type of society. Modern industrial societies have lower levels of integration. Individual’s rights and freedoms become more important than obligations to the group. This weakens social bonds and gives rise to egoistic suicides. Similarly modern societies are less effective in regulating individuals because they undergo rapid social change which undermines accepted norms and produces anomic suicides. Traditional preindustrial societies have higher levels of integration. The group is more important than the individual and this gives rise to altruistic suicides. Similarly these societies strictly regulate their member’s lives and impose rigidly ascribed statuses that limit individual’s opportunities and this produces fatalistic suicides.

Other positivists since Durkheim have built on his work. Maurice Halbwachs (1930) accepted his positivist approach but added to his theory. Halbwachs argued differences between urban and rural residence were the main reasons for variations in suicide rates. Higher rates among protestants, people living alone ect were more a function of their urban location; these groups were more likely to be found in towns where people live more isolated lives. Sainsbury (1955) found suicide in London boroughs were highest where the levels of social disorganisation were highest.

Jack Gibbs and Walter Martin (1964) wish to make law like cause and effect generalisations and predictions like Durkheim. However they argue Durkheim doesn’t operationalise his concept of integration; he doesn’t define it in a way that can be measured. Gibbs and Martin go on to define integration as a situation where there are stable and lasting relationships. They argue these tend to occur when and individual has status integration; compatible statuses that don’t conflict with one another, such as when their educational and occupational statuses are similar. They predict in societies where there is little status integration the suicide rate will be higher. Other aspects of Durkheim’s study have also been criticised. For example it’s argued the statistics he used were unreliable and incomplete; in the 19^th century medical knowledge was limited. Similarly many countries lacked the means needed to collect and compile reliable statistics on a national basis. However these criticisms do not challenge the basic aim of Durkheim’s study, to achieve a scientific explanation of suicide.

Jack Douglas (1967) takes a largely Interactionist approach to suicide. He is interested in the meaning suicide has for the deceased and in the way coroners label deaths as suicides. He criticises Durkheim’s study of suicide on two main grounds.

The decision to classify a death as a suicide is taken by a coroner and influenced by other social actors and this may produce bias in the verdicts reached. Douglas argues this may explain the patterns Durkheim found. For example the finding that a high level of integration leads to low suicide rates can be explained by the fact well integrated individuals may have friends or relatives who deny the death was suicide out of their own feelings of guilt, or even cover up the suicide by destroying a suicide note. Contrastingly socially isolated individuals have no one to oppose a suicide verdict on their behalf. Thus although it might seem as if integration prevents suicide, in fact integration merely affects the likelihood of a death being labelled and recorded as a suicide rather than it actually being a suicide. For Douglas suicide verdicts and the statistics based on them are the product of interactions and negotiations between those involved; relatives, doctors, coroners ECT and factors such as integration influencing these negotiations.

Douglas criticises Durkheim for ignoring the meanings of the act for those who kill themselves and for assuming that suicide has a fixed or constant meaning. Douglas notes that the meanings of suicide can vary between cultures. For example a Japanese samurai and western businessmen may attach different meanings to suicide. These motives and meanings must be understood within their own social and cultural context and this means Durkheim’s attempts to compare rates across cultures are faced with problems. Douglas also rejects Durkheim’s aim to categorise suicide in terms of their social causes. Instead we must classify each death according to its actual meaning for the deceased. To do so we must use qualitative methods and sources to produce case studies based on the analysis of suicide notes and diaries and in depth interviews with the victims friends and relatives. From these we can build up a typology of suicide meanings. Although Douglas did not carry out any case studies himself he suggests that in western societies the social meanings of suicide include escape, repentance, search for sympathy ect. However he points out suicides may have different meanings in other cultures, for example religious ones such as getting into heaven. For Douglas using qualitative data overcomes the problems of using official statistics. Analysis of suicide notes would allow us to get behind the labels that coroners attach to cases and discover the real meaning of the death for the person involved. From this we can get a better idea of the real rate of suicide than the socially constructed one that appears in statistics.

Douglas produces a classification of suicide based on the supposed meanings for the actors. However there is no reason to believe sociologists are any better than coroners at interpreting dead person’s meanings. Sainsbury and Barraclough (1968) found that the rank order of suicide for immigrant groups to the USA correlated closely with the suicide rates of their country of origin despite the fact a different set of labellers were involved. This suggests statistics reflect real differences between groups rather than coroners labelling. Douglas is inconsistent, sometimes suggesting that official statistics are merely the product of coroner’s opinions. At other times he claims we can really discover the causes of suicide; yet how can we if we can never know whether a death was a suicide and all we have is the coroner’s opinions.

J. Maxwell Atkinson (1978) takes a different Interpretivist approach from Douglas, that of ethno methodology. Ethno methodology argues that social reality is simply a construct of its members. We create reality using a stock of taken for granted commonsense knowledge. The sociologist’s job is to uncover what this knowledge is and how we use it to make sense of the world. From this perspective Atkinson reviews Douglas’ contribution. Douglas argues official statistics are constructs of coroners and using qualitative data allows us to get behind meanings of suicide for the deceased. Atkinson accepts Douglas’ first point but rejects his second. Atkinson argues we can never know the real rate of suicide since we would have to know for sure what meanings the dead gave to their deaths, which is impossible. Thus it’s pointless trying to discover the real rate. All we can study is how people make sense of their world. With suicide this means studying how the living comes to classify the death as a suicide. The statistics are neither right nor wrong; they’re merely interpretations made by certain officials and so all we can study is how they are constructed. Atkinson thus focuses on how coroners categorise deaths. He uses qualitative methods. From this research he concludes coroners have common sense knowledge about the typical suicide. This includes what kind of person commits suicide, for what reasons, a typical place of death ect. If a particular case fits their common sense theory coroners are more likely to categorise the death as suicide.

Atkinson argues that coroner’s commonsense theories lead them to see the following types of evidence as relevant; a suicide note or suicide threats prior to death. The mode of death for example hanging is seen as a typical suicide, a road death an accident while drowning is less clear. Location and circumstances, death by shooting is more likely to be labelled suicide if it’s in a deserted lay by rather than a hunting party. Life history; a disturbed childhood or bankruptcies are seen as likely cause of suicide. Coroners regard information such as this as clues to whether the deceased intended to take their own life. For example Atkinson (1971) quotes one coroner saying that in the case of drowning he looked to whether clothes where neatly folded on the beach; if they were it usually points to suicide. Atkinson concludes that coroners are engaged in analysing cases using taken for granted assumptions about what constitutes as a typical suicide. A verdict of a suicide is simply an interpretation of a death based on these taken for granted assumptions. If correct this poses serious problems for theories such as Durkheim’s that treats statistics as facts as all they do is spell out coroners theories of suicide. For example if coroners believe that typical suicides are socially isolated people then more of these people will end up in statistics. The sociologist who then takes the statistics at face value and produces a theory such as lack of integration causes suicide is merely echoing the coroners commonsense theory; not discovering the real cause of suicide.

Structuralist Barry Hindess (1973) criticise ethno methodologists’ approach as self defeating. Atkinson’s view that the only thing we can study about suicide is the coroners’ interpretation can be turned back on him. If all we can have is interpretations of the social world, rather than objective truth about it then ethno methodologist’s accounts are themselves no more than interpretations. If so there is no good reason why we should accept them. However most ethno methodologists accept that their accounts are merely interpretations. Unlike positivists who claim to produce objective, scientific accounts they do not claim that their interpretations are superior to those of the people they study.

Steve Taylor (1982) takes a different approach to both positivists and interpretivists. He argues suicide statistics cannot be taken as valid. For example in a study half of people hit by a train were classed as suicide even though there was no conclusive evidence of suicidal intent. Taylor found that coroners saw factors such as a history of mental illness as indications of suicidal intent and this increased the likelihood of a suicide verdict. However like the positivists Taylor still believes we can explain suicide. He believes we can discover real patterns and causes, though unlike positivists he doesn’t base his explanation on suicide statistics. Instead he adopts a realist approach. This aims to reveal underlying structures and causes, which though not directly observable can explain the observable evidence. He uses case studies to discover the underlying of meaning that cause suicide.

Many theories on suicide focus on acts where the individual was intent on dying and that resulted in death. For example Durkheim’s study is about causes of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act by the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result. However Taylor notes that in many cases those who attempt suicide are not certain their actions will kill them. Nor are all who attempt suicide are aiming to die; some are communicating with others. Thus we should look at both successful and unsuccessful attempts and adopt a broader definition of suicide as any deliberate act of self damage or potential self damage where the individual cannot be sure of survival.

Taylor suggests that a situation where the person is most likely to attempt suicide is those where there is complete certainty or uncertainty either about themselves or about others. This gives him four possible types of suicide. The first two types are inner or self directed suicides which Taylor calls ectopic, where the individual is psychologically detached from others. Because of this the suicide attempt is a private, self contained act. There are two types of ectopic suicide. Submissive suicides; where the person is certain about themselves. For example they may know they have no reason to go on, for example a terminal illness. Their suicide attempt is deadly serious, because they know they want to die. Thanatation suicides; where they are uncertain about themselves. For example they may be uncertain about what others think of them. Their suicide attempt involves risk taking, they may or may not survive it, chance will decide for example playing Russian roulette.

The other two types are other directed or symphysic suicides where the individual has an overwhelming attachment to some other person. For example they feel that the other gives them a reason for living. These suicides are not self contained but a way of communicating with others. There are two types. Sacrifice suicides; where they are certain about suicides and know they have to kill themselves. Like submissive suicides their attempt is deadly serious. Usually either they or the person has done something that makes it impossible for the person to go on living, for example betrayal through an affair. This suicide is a form of communication in which they may seek to blame the other for their death, usually so they will suffer guilt. Appeal suicides; where the person is uncertain about others. They have doubts about their importance to the other and attempt suicide to resolve the uncertainty. The attempt is a form of communication that seeks to change the others behaviour. Like Thanatation suicides they involve risk taking and uncertainty about the outcome. They are acts of despair and hope, combining the wish to die and things to change things for the better.

Taylor’s theory is based on his interpretations of the actors’ meanings and there is no way of knowing if these are correct, especially in the case of those who succeeded. Also individual cases may involve a combination of motives and may be difficult to categorise. Taylor’s small sample as case studies while useful in giving insight into motives is unlikely to be representative of suicides in general. Unlike Durkheim, Taylor has not connected the four types to wider social structures. However there are similarities between the two. Taylor’s ideas of certainty and uncertainty parallel Durkheim’s notions of fatalism and anomie respectively. Nevertheless his theory is original and useful in explaining some of the observed patterns of suicide such as why attempts differ in seriousness and why only some leave notes. It also deals with both failed and successful attempts.

“Sociology cannot and should not be a science”. To what extent do sociological arguments and evidence support this view?

Sociologists such as Auguste Comte (1798) are impressed by science in explaining the natural world. These sociologists are called positivists. Positivists believe it’s possible to apply methods of natural sciences in study of society and by doing so we gain true and objective knowledge of the same type found in natural sciences. This provides a basis for progress and solving social problems. Positivists argue reality exists outside and independently of the human mind. They argue nature is made up of objective, observable, physical facts that are external to our minds. Similarly society is an objective reality – a real thing made up of social facts out there and independent to individuals.

Positivists argue reality is not random but patterned and can be observed empirically. It’s the job of the sociologist to observe, identify, measure and record patterns and then to explain them. Durkheim argues laws are discoverable and will explain patterns. Sociologists can discover laws that determine how society works; this is called induction or inductive reasoning. This involves accumulating data about the world through observation and measurement. As knowledge grows we begin to see patterns.

From this we can develop a theory that explains observations. After more observations verify the theory we can claim to have discovered the truth in the form of a general law. This approach is called verificationism. Positivists argue the patterns we observe, in nature and society can be explained in the same way by finding facts that caused them. Positivist sociologists thus seek to discover causes of patterns they observe. Like natural scientists they aim to produce general statements or scientific laws about how society works which can be used to predict the future and advise social policy. Positivists favour structural explanations such as functionalism and Marxism as they see society and its structures as social facts existing outside us and shape our behaviour patterns.

Positivists believe sociology should take the experimental method used in natural sociology for the model of research as it allows the investigator to test the hypothesis in a controlled way. Positivists use quantitative data to uncover measure patterns of behaviour allowing them to produce mathematically precise statements about relationships between facts their investigating. By analysing quantitative data positivists seek to discover laws of cause and effect that determine our behaviour. Positivist’s researchers should be detached and objective and now let subjective feeling influence the way they conduct experiments. In natural sciences its claimed scientist’s values make no difference to outcome of research. However in sociology there’s a danger of the researcher of contaminating the experiment. Positivists thus employ methods to allow maximum objectivity and thus use quantitative methods. These methods also produce reliable data that can be checked by other researchers repeating the experiment.

To show that sociology was a science with its own distinctive subject matter Durkheim chose to study suicide. He believed if he could show this highly individual act had social causes it would establish sociology’s status as a scientific discipline. Using quantitative data from official statistics Durkheim observed patterns in suicide rates. Rates for Protestants were higher then Catholics, thus he concluded patterns could not be the products of motives of individuals, but were social facts. Thus they must be caused by other social facts – forces acting on members of society to determine their behaviour. Durkheim argues the social facts responsible for determining suicide rates were levels of integration and regulation. As Catholics were more successful of integrating individuals they were less likely to commit suicide. Thus Durkheim claims to have discovered a real law, that different levels of integration produce different suicide rates. He claimed to have demonstrated that sociology had its own unique subject matter, social facts, and they can be explained scientifically. Thus positivists disagree with the statement that sociology cannot and should not be a science.

Interpretivist sociologists however do not believe sociology should model itself on the natural sciences. Interpretivist criticise positivists scientific approach as inadequate for the study of human beings.

Interpreitvists argue the subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action, and we can only understand it by interpreting meanings and motives of actors involved. They argue sociology is about internal meanings and not external causes. Sociology isn’t a science because science only deals with laws of cause and effect and not human meanings. Thus they reject the use of natural science methods and explanations as a model for sociology. They argue there’s a fundamental difference between subject matter of the sciences and sociology. Natural science studies matter which has no consciousness. Thus behaviour can be explained as a straightforward reaction to external stimuli. Sociology studies people who have consciousness. People construct the world by attaching meanings to it. Actions can only be understood by these meanings and meanings are internal to people’s consciousness, they are ideas or constructs, not things. Unlike matter people have free will and have choice. Mead argues responding automatically to external stimuli humans interpret the meaning of stimulus and then choose how to respond to it. For example at a red light the driver interprets it as stop, though they don’t have to stop, and external forces don’t determine their behaviour.  Thus Interpretivist argues individuals are not puppets manipulated by social facts but they are autonomous and construct their social world by meanings they give to it. The job of the sociologist is to uncover those meanings.

Interpretivists reject the methods of natural science. They argue to discover meanings people give to their actions we need to see the world from their viewpoint. This involves abandoning objectivity of positivists. We must put ourselves in the place of the actor using what Weber calls verstehen. Thus they favour the use of qualitative methods and data such as participant observation. These methods produce in depth and valid data and give the sociologist a subjective understanding of the actor’s meanings.

All interpretivists seek to understand actors meanings, however divided whether or not we can combine this understanding with positivist style casual explanation of human behaviour. Interactionists argue we can have casual explanations. However they reject the positivist view that we should have a definite hypothesis before we start our research. Glaser and Strauss (1968) argue it risks imposing our own view of what is important rather than the actors, so we end up distorting the reality we’re trying to capture.  Glaser and Strauss favour a bottom up approach, or grounded theory. Rather than entering research with a fixed hypothesis at the start, our ideas should emerge from observations during the course of the research. These ideas can later be used to produce a testable hypothesis. Phenomenologist’s and ethno methodologists such as Garfinkel reject causal explanations of human behaviour. They take an anti structuralism view arguing society isn’t a real thing out there governing our actions. Social reality is simply the shard meanings or knowledge of members, thus society is not an external force but exists only in people’s consciousness thus the subject matter of sociology can only consist of interpretive procedures by which people make sense of the world. As peoples actions are not governed by external causes there’s no possibility of cause and effect explanation of the kind sought by positivists.

Interactionist Jack Douglas (1967) rejects the positivist idea of external social facts determining our behaviour. Individuals have free will and choose to act on basis of meanings. Thus to uncover suicide we must uncover meanings for those involved instead of imposing our own meanings. Douglas rejects Durkheim’s use of quantitative data from official statistics. They’re not objective facts but social constructions resulting from the way coroners label certain deaths as suicide Douglas argues we should use qualitative data from case studies of suicides since they can reveal actors meanings and give us a better idea of the real rate of suicide than the official statistics. Maxwell Atkinson (1978) rejects the idea that external social facts determine behaviour and agrees statistics are socially constructed. However unlike Douglas, Atkinson argues we can never know the real rate of suicide by even using qualitative methods since we can never know for sure what meanings the deceased held. Atkinson argues the only thing we can study is the ways the living make sense of deaths – the interpretive procedures coroners use to classify deaths. Ethno methodologists argue members of society have a stock of taken for granted assumptions with which they make sense of situations, including deaths. The sociologist’s role is to uncover what this knowledge is and how coroners use it to arrive at a verdict.

Postmodernists argue against the idea of a scientific sociology. They regard natural science as a meta-narrative. Despite the claim to have special action to the truth, science is another big story; its account of the world is no more valid than any other. Thus there’s no particular reason why we should adopt science as a model for sociology. Given the postmodernist view that there are as many different truths as there are points of view, a scientific approach is dangerous as it can claim a monopoly of truth and exclude other points of view. Thus scientific sociology not only makes false claims about the truth it’s also a form of domination. Feminists, such as post structural feminists share this view of scientific sociology. They argue the quest for a single scientific feminist theory is a form of domination as it excludes groups of women. Other feminists argue the quantitative scientific methods favoured by positivists are oppressive and cannot capture the reality of women’s experiences. Some writers argue that science is an undesirable model for sociology to follow as in practice science has not led to the progress that positivists believe it would. For example the emergence of risk society, with scientifically created dangers such as nuclear weapons and global warming, has undermined the idea that science inevitably brings benefits to human kind. If science produces such negative consequences it’s argued it would be inappropriate for sociology to adopt it as a model.

Although the interpretivists reject the positivist view that sociology is a science they tend to agree with positivists that natural sciences are actually as the positivists describe them. Positivists see natural science as inductive reasoning or verificationism applied to the study of observable patterns. However not everyone accepts the positivists portrayal of the natural sciences.  A number of sociologists, philosophers and historians put forward a different picture of science.

Sir Karl Popper (1994) argues many systems of thought claim to have true knowledge about the world such as religion, political and scientific ideology Popper asks what distinguishes scientific knowledge and why has science grown so quickly in the last few centuries.

Popper differs from positivists in that he rejects their view that the distinctive feature of science lies in inductive reasoning and verificationism. The main reason why we should reject verificationism is because of the “fallacy of induction”. Induction is the process of moving from the observation of particular instances of something to arrive at a general statement. Popper uses swans to demonstrate this. By observing a large number of white swans, he generalised that all swans are white. It’s easy to make further observations to verify this. However despite how many swans we observe we cannot prove all swans are white as a single observation of a black swan will destroy the theory. Thus we can never prove a theory true simply by producing more observations that verify this.

Popper argues what makes science unique form of knowledge is the opposite of verificationism, a principle called falsificationism. A scientific statement is one that in principle is capable of being falsified by the evidence. We must be able to say what evidence would count as falsifying the statement when we come to put it to the test. Popper argues a good theory has two features. It’s in principle falsifiable but when tested it stands up to attempts to disprove it. It is also bold; it claims to explain a great deal. It makes generalisations that predict a large number of cases, thus is at greater risk of being falsified then a more timid theory that explains a small number of events.

For a theory to be falsifiable it must be open to criticism from other scientists. Popper argues science is a public activity. Everything is open to criticism thus flaws in a theory can be readily exposed and better theories developed. Popper explains this is why science has grown so rapidly. Popper argues science thrives in open or liberal societies, societies where ideas are open and open to challenge. Contrastingly closed societies are dominated by an official belief system that claims to have absolute truth. Such belief systems stifle growth of science as they conflict with the nature of science.

Popper argues much of sociology is unscientific because it consists of theories that can’t be put to the test with the possibility they can’t be falsified. For example Marxists predict there will be a revolution leading to a classless society however it hasn’t happened because of false consciousness. Thus the theory can’t be falsified as in all cases, Marx is always right. However popper believes sociology can be scientific as it can produce theories that in principle can be falsified. Julienne Ford (1969) hypothesised the comprehensive schooling would produce social mixing of pupils from different social classes. She was able to test and falsify this hypothesis through her empirical research. Although popper rejects Marxism as unscientific because it’s untestable, he doesn’t believe untestable ideas are worthless. Such ideas are valued as they become testable at a later date and we can still examine them for logistical consistency. For example debates between different sociological perspectives can clarify woolly thinking and help formulate a testable hypothesis. While sociology may have a larger quantity of untestable ideas then the natural sciences, this may be because it’s not been in existence as long as natural science has.

Thomas Kuhn (1970) idea is the paradigm. A paradigm is shared by members of a given scientific community and defines what their science is. It provides a basic framework of assumptions, principles, methods and techniques within which members of that community work. It is a world view that tells scientists what nature is like, which aspects are worth studying, what methods should be used, what kind of questions they should ask and even the sorts of answers they should find. The paradigm is thus a set of norms as it tells the scientist how they ought to think. Scientists come to accept the paradigm uncritically as a result of their socialisation. Kuhn argues a science cannot exist without a shared paradigm. Until there’s consensus on a single paradigm, there will only be rival schools of thought, not a science as such.

For the most of the time the paradigm goes unquestioned and scientists do what Kuhn calls normal science which is like puzzle solving. The paradigm defines the questions and the answers. Scientists are left to fill in detail or work out the neatest solution. Kuhn argues the advantage of the paradigm is that it allows scientists to agree on the basics of their field and helps production. This contrasts with poppers view of science. John Watkins (1970) argues while popper sees falsification as a unique feature of science, Kuhn argues its puzzle solving within a paradigm that makes science so special.

However not all puzzle solving is successful. Sometimes scientists obtain findings contrary to those the paradigm led them to expect. As these anomalies mount up confidence in the paradigm begins to decline and this leads to the argument about basic assumptions and to efforts to reformulate the paradigm so as to account for the anomalies. The science has now entered a period of crisis. Previously taken for granted foundations are questioned. Scientists begin to formulate rival paradigms and this marks the start of the scientific revolution. Kuhn argues rival paradigms are incommensurable; two competing paradigms cannot be judged or measured by the same set of standards to decide which ones best. What supporters of one paradigm regard as a decisive refutation of the other, supporters of the rival paradigm will not recognise as a valid test, as each paradigm is a different way of seeing the world. To move from one to the other requires a massive shift of mindset. Eventually one paradigm wins and becomes accepted by the scientific community, allowing normal science to resume, however with a new set of basic assumptions. However the process is not rational. Kuhn compares it with religious conversion. Generally the new paradigm gets support from younger scientists as they have less to lose then older superiors. Kuhn’s view of scientific community contrasts with popper. Popper argues the scientific community is open and rational, constantly seeking to falsify exiting theories by producing evidence against them. Progress occurs by challenging accepted ideas. Kuhn argues by contrast the scientific community is not normally characterised by openness. Most of the time during normal science scientists is conformists. Only during scientific revolution does this change. Even then scientists have no rational means of choosing one paradigm rather than another.

Currently sociology is pre paradigmatic and thus pre scientific, divided into competing perspectives. There’s now shared paradigm. On Kuhn’s definition sociology could only become a science if basic disagreements were resolved. Whether this is possible is a doubt. Postmodernists argue a paradigm may not be desirable in sociology. It sounds like a meta-narrative. Post modernists argue it silences minority views and it falsely claims to have the truth.

A third view from science comes from the realist approach. Russell Keat and John Urry (1982) stress similarities between sociology and natural science such as degree of control for the researcher. They distinguish between open and closed systems. Closed systems are where the researcher can control and measure all the relevant variables and can make precise predictions. The typical research method is a laboratory. Open systems are those where the researcher can’t control and measure relevant variables and thus cannot make precise predictions. Realists argue that sociologists study open systems where the processes are too complex to make exact predictions. For example we cannot predict the crime rate precisely as there are too many variables involved, most of which cannot be controlled, measured or identified.

Realists reject the positivist view that science is only concerned with observable phenomena. Keat and Urry argue science often assumes the existence of unobservable structures. Realists argue this also means interpretivists are wrong in assuming sociology can’t be scientific. Interpretivists believe because of actors meanings are in their minds and not directly observable they cannot be studied scientifically. However if realists are correct and science can study observable phenomena then it’s no barrier to study meaning scientifically. For realists both natural and social science attempt to explain the causes of events in terms of underlying structures and processes. Although these structures are often unobservable we can work out they exist by observing their effects. For example we cannot directly see social class but we can observe effects. Thus much sociology is scientific. Thus unlike interpretivists realists see little difference between natural sciences and sociology, except natural scientists can study in closed laboratories.

In conclusion, sociologists are divided about whether sociology is a science. While positivists favour adopting natural sciences as a model interpretivists reject the view that sociology can be scientific. This division is based in the disagreement of the nature of sociology and subject matter. Positivists see sociology as the study of causes. Social facts cause individuals to behave as they do. Positivists see this as the same as the natural sciences approach, to discover the causes of patterns they observe. Interpretivists see sociology the study of meaningful social action. Internal meanings are why actors behave the way they do. Human actions are not governed by external causes thus cannot be studied the same way as natural sciences. However while positivists and interpretivists disagree about whether sociology can be a science they both accept the positivist view of natural sciences of verificationism. Different pictures of science have emerged, having implications for sociology. Popper rejects verificationism in favour of falsificationism, thus much sociology is unscientific but has the potential to b e so. Kuhn argues sociology can only become a science if it develops its own paradigm. Realists argue science doesn’t only deal with observable phenomena as positivists argue but underlying unobservable structures. Thus Marxism and interpteivism can be seen as scientific.

Assess the sociological explanations of science and ideology as belief systems

Many sociologists argue modern science is the product of the process of rationalisation that began with the protestant reformation in the 16^th century. Some sociologists, for example secularisation theorists, argue it has undermined religion by changing the way we think and how we see the world.

Science has had a huge impact on society in the last few centuries with medicines curing fatal diseases and advances in communication and technology. Science and technology has revolutionised economic productivity and raised standards of living. This success has led to a widespread belief in science; believing science can deliver the goods.  However, this faith has been dimmed by science causing problems. For example pollution, weapons and global warming are products of science. While science protects us from natural dangers, it creates its own manufactured risks. However the good and bad effects of science show features distinguishing it from other belief systems – known as its cognitive power. It enables us to explain, predict and control the world in a way that non scientific or pre scientific belief systems cannot do.

Sir Karl Popper (1959) argues science is an open belief system where every scientist’s theories are open to scrutiny, criticism and testing by others/ Science is governed by the principle of falsificationism. Scientists set out to try and falsify existing theories, deliberately seeking evidence that would disprove them. If the evidence from an experiment or observation contradicts a theory and shows it to be false, the theory can be discarded and the search for a better explanation can begin. In science, knowledge claims live or die by the evidence. Popper argues discarding falsified knowledge claims is what enables scientific understanding of the world to grow. Scientific knowledge is cumulative – it builds on the achievements of previous scientists to build greater understanding of the world around us. However despite achievements of scientists no theory is taken as definitely true; there’s always the possibility of someone disproving it. For example it was previously believed the sun revolved around the earth till disproved by Copernicus who showed this knowledge claim to be false. Popper argues the key thing about scientific knowledge is that it’s not a sacred or absolute truth; it can be always questioned, tested and perhaps shown to be false.

There’s the question why science has only grown rapidly in the last few centuries. Functionalist Robert K Merton (1973) argues that science can only thrive as a social institution if it receives support from other institutions and values. He argues this first occurred in England with the protestant reformation and especially development of puritan beliefs. The puritans this worldly calling and industriousness and their belief in the study of nature led to appreciation of god’s work encouraged them to experiment. Puritanism also stressed social welfare and they were attracted by the fact that science could produce technological inventions to improve conditions in life. The new institution of science also received support from economic and military institutions as the value of the practical applications of science became obvious in areas such as mining, navigation and weaponry. Merton argues science is an institution that needs an ethos; a set of norms that make scientists act in ways that serve to goal of increasing scientific knowledge. He identifies four such norms called CUDOS – Communism; scientific knowledge is not private property. Scientists must share it with the scientific community (by publishing findings), otherwise science cannot grow. Universalism; The truth or falsity of scientific knowledge is judged by universal, objective criteria (such as testing) and not by the particular race, sex etc of the scientist who produces it. Disinterestedness; This means being committed to discovering scientific knowledge for its own sake. Having to publish their findings makes it harder for scientists to practise fraud, since it enables others to check their claims. Organised scepticism; no knowledge claim is regarded as sacred. Every idea is open to questioning, criticism and objective investigation.

In this way science appears to differ fundamentally from traditional religious belief systems. While scientific knowledge is provisional, open to challenge and potentially disprovable, religion claims to have special, perfect knowledge of the absolute truth. Its knowledge is literally sacred and religious organisations claim to hold it on god’s authority. This means it can’t be challenged and those that do may be challenged for heresy. It also means religious knowledge doesn’t change, thus unlike scientific knowledge it cannot grow. Robin Horton (1970) puts forward a similar argument. He distinguishes between open and closed belief systems. Like popper he sees science as an open belief system – one where knowledge claims are open to criticism and can be disproved by testing. Contrastingly religion is a closed belief system. They make knowledge claims that can’t be overturned. Whenever fundamental beliefs are threatened, a closed belief system has a number of get out clauses that reinforce the system and prevent it being disproved, at least in the eyes of its believers. These ideas vary from one belief system to the other.

One example of this is witchcraft among the Azande. Like westerners the Azande believe natural events have natural causes. For example a snake bit me because I accidently stepped on it as I walked down the path. However unlike the west the Azande don’t believe in coincidence or chance. For example, I have walked down the same path a thousand times and never been bitten before, so why me? Why now? Thus when misfortune befalls on the Azande they may explain it in terms of witchcraft. Someone is practising witchcraft against me. Is such cases the injured may make an accusation against the suspected and the matter may be resolved by consulting the princes magic poison oracle. The prince will administer a potion, called a benge to a chicken. They ask the benge whether the accused is the source of witch craft, telling the benge to kill the chicken if the answer is yes. If the chicken dies the sufferer can demand the witchcraft to stop. This is enough to end the problem because the Azande regard witch crafts a psychic power and it’s possible the accused is doing harm unintentionally and unconsciously. It allows the accused to proclaim there surprise and horror, to apologise and promise there will be no further bewitching. Evans-Pritchard argues this belief system performs useful social functions. It clears the air and prevents grudges and encourages neighbours to act considerably to one another. The Azande also see witchcraft to be hereditary, thus children have interest in keeping parents in line since successful accusation against parents damages the child’s reputation. Thus the belief system is an important social control mechanism ensuring conformity and cooperation. As Evans-Pritchard argues this belief system is highly resistant to challenges; it is a closed belief system. For example non believers may argue if the benge killed the chicken without the diviner first addressing the potion, this would be a decisive test showing the oracle did not work. However for the Azande such an outcome just proves that it was not a good benge. Evans Pritchard argues the very fact of the chicken dying proves to them its badness. Thus the test doesn’t disprove the belief system in the eyes of its believers, but reinforces it. The believers are trapped in their own idiom of belief or way of thinking because they accept the systems basic assumptions, such as the existence of witchcraft, they cannot challenge it.

Polanyi (1958) argues belief systems have three devices to sustain themselves in the face of apparently contradictory evidence. Circularity; each idea in the system is explained in terms of another idea within the system and so on. Subsidiary explanations; for example if the oracle fails, it may be explained away as due to the incorrect use of the benge. Denial of legitimacy to rivals; belief systems reject alternative worldviews by refusing to grant legitimacy to their basic assumptions.

However, despite Popper’s view of science as open and critical, others argue science can be a closed system. For example Polyani argues all belief systems reject fundamental challenges to their belief systems, science being no different. An example is the case of Dr Velokovski. In his book he challenged fundamental assumptions of science. However the response from the scientific community was far from open; they rejected his work without reading the book. Those calling for a fair hearing lost their jobs. Thomas S Kuhn gives an explanation for scientist’s refusal to consider such challenges. Kuhn argues mature science such as biology is based on a set of shared assumptions called a paradigm. The paradigm tells scientists what science is really like, what problems to study and what methods and equipment to use, what will count as evidence and even what answers they should find. Mostly scientists are engaged in normal science which Kuhn likens to puzzle solving; the paradigm lays the broad outlines and the scientist fills in the details. Those who are successful are rewarded e.g. research grants, Nobel prizes ECT. Scientific education and training is a process of being socialised into a faith in the truth of the paradigm, and a successful career depends on working in the paradigm. Thus any scientist who challenges the fundamental assumptions of the paradigm is likely to be ridiculed. The only exceptions are rare periods of scientific revolution, when faith in the truth of the paradigm has been undermined by accumulation of anomalies; results the paradigm can’t account for. Only then do scientists become open to radically new ideas.

Interpretivist sociologists have developed Kuhn’s ideas further. They argue all knowledge; including scientific knowledge is socially constructed. Rather than being objective truth, it’s created by social groups using the resources available to them. In the case of science, scientific facts, what scientists take to be true and real, are the products of shared theories and paradigms that tell them what they should expect to see, and of the particular instruments they use. Thus Karin Knorr-Cetina (1981) argues the invention of new instruments such as telescopes permits scientists to make new observations and construct new facts. She also points out what scientists study in the laboratory is highly constructed and far removed from the natural world they’re supposed to be studying.

Ethno methodologist Steve Woolgar (1988) argues scientists are engaged in the same process of making sense or interpreting the world as everyone else. When confronted by evidence from observations and experiments they have to decide what it means. They do so by devising theories and explanations, but they have to persuade others to accept their interpretations. For example in the case of discovering pulsars by researchers in 1967, the scientists initially annotated the patterns as “LGM1”, standing for little green men. Recognising this was an unacceptable interpretation from the viewpoint of the scientific community, they settled on the notion that the patterns represented signals unknown to science. However a decade later there was still disagreement among astronomers as to what the signals meant. As Woolgar notes a scientific fact is simply a social construction of belief that scientists are able to persuade their colleagues to share, not a real thing out there.

Other critical perspectives such as Marxism and feminism don’t see scientific knowledge as pure truth. They argue it serves interests of dominant groups; the ruling class for Marxists and men for feminists. Thus advances in pure science are driven for the need of capitalism for certain types of knowledge. For example theoretical work on ballistics was used for military development. Likewise biological ideas have been used to justify male and domination and colonial expansion. Thus science can be seen as a form of ideology. Post modernists also reject the claim of science to have the truth. Lyotard (1984) argues science is another met narrative that falsely claims to possess the truth. Lyotard argues science falsely claims to offer the truth about how the world works as a means of progress to a better society, whereas in reality science is another way of thinking used to dominate people. Like Marxists postmodernists argue science has become techno science, simply serving capitalisms interests by producing commodities for profit.

A basic definition of ideology is that it is a worldview or a set of ideas and values – a belief system. However the term has taken on related meanings, often including negative aspects, such as; distorted ideas of the world, ideas that conceal the interests of a particular group to justify their privileges, ideas that prevent change by misleading people or a self sustainable belief system that’s closed to criticism. Thus when someone uses the term ideology to describe a belief system, they regard it a morally wrong.

Marxism sees society divided into conflicting classes, a minority ruling class who own the means of production and the majority working class who are property less and are forced to sell their labour. The capitalists exploit this to produce profit, thus it’s in the workers interests to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a communist society where the means of production are owned collectively, not privately and used to benefit society as a whole. For the revolution to occur, the working class must develop class consciousness. However the ruling class also own the production of ideas, through institutions such as the media, education ect. There produce ruling class ideology, ideas that legitimate the status quo. Ruling class ideology includes the idea equality will never work because it goes against human nature, victim blaming ideas about poverty, racist and nationalist ideas to divide workers. Thus dominant ideas are ideas of the ruling class and they function to prevent change by creating false consciousness among workers. However despite ideological barriers Marx believes the working class will develop true class consciousness and unite to overthrow capitalism.

Gramsci (1971) refers to ruling class ideological domination of society as hegemony. He argues the working class can develop ideas that challenge the ruling class hegemony. This is because in capitalist society workers have a dual consciousness, a mix of ruling class ideology and ideas they develop from their own experience of exploitation and their struggles against it. It’s thus possible for the working class to develop class consciousness and overthrow capitalism. Gramsci argues this requires a political party of organic intellectuals; workers who have developed class consciousness and can spread it through the working class. However critics argue it’s not the existence of a dominant ideology that prevents overthrow of capitalism. Abercrombie (1980) argues its economic factors such as the fear of unemployment that keeps workers from rebelling.

Mannheim (1929) argues all belief systems have a partial worldview. Their one sidedness results from being the viewpoint of one group and its interests. He distinguishes between two types of belief system. Ideological thought justifies keeping things as they are. It reflects the position and interests of privileged groups like the capitalist class. They benefit from maintaining the status quo, thus their belief system tends to be conservative. Utopian thought justifies social change. It reflects the position of the underprivileged and offers vision of how society can be organised differently. For example the working class are disadvantaged by the status quo and may favour radical change to a classless society. Mannheim sees this worldviews as creations of groups of intellectuals who attach themselves to particular classes or social groups. For example the role of Gramsci’s organic intellectuals is to create socialist worldview. However because these interests represent interests of particular groups and not the whole of society they only produce partial views of reality. The belief system of each class only gives us a partial truth about the world. Mannheim argues this is a source of conflict in society. Different intellectuals linked to different groups produce opposing ideas that justify the claims of their groups as against the others.

Mannheim argues the solution is to detach intellectuals from their social groups and create a non aligned free floating intelligentsia standing above the conflict. Freed from representing interests of a group they can synthesise elements of different partial ideologies to arrive at a total worldview that represents society as a whole. However elements of different ideologies are diametrical opposed thus it’s hard to be imagined them being synthesised. For example the conflict between Marxists view of a classless society and conservative idea that hierarchy is good.

Feminists see gender inequality as the fundamental division and patriarchal ideology playing a role to legitimise it. Because gender differences are a feature in all societies there exists different ideologies to justify it. For example Pauline marks (1979) describes how ideas from science were used to exclude women from education, such as the idea education would lead to women being unable to suckle infants. In addition to patriarchal ideologies in science those embodied in religious beliefs and practises have also been used to define women as inferior. For example women being unclean due to menstruation. However not all elements of religion subordinate women. For example in the early history of the Middle East before the emergence of monotheistic religion female deities were widespread.

Critically examine the relationship between different social groups and their religious beliefs and practices

There are significant differences between social groups and their participation and the types of belief they hold.

There are clear gender differences in religious belief and participation; while priesthoods of most religions are male women are likeier to participate in activities and have belief in god and the supernatural. For example in 2005 1.8 million women in England were church goers, compared to just 1.36 million men. Miller and Hoffman (1995) found women express greater interest in religion; they have a greater personal commitment and go to church more. They found that this was true for all religious organisations, ages and faiths. Bruce (1996) estimated there are twice as many women than men in sects. Heelas and Woodhead (2005) found in their study of Kendal 80% of holistic milieu participants were female. These gender differences can be linked to the way men and women see god; as a god of power and control or a god of love and forgiveness.

Sociologists have given several arguments for gender differences in religious belief and practice. Miller and Hoffman argue women are more religious as they’re socialised to be more passive, obedient and caring. Religion values all of these characteristics, thus women are more likely than men to be attracted to religion. It’s noted that men who also have these qualities are also more likely to be religious. Miller and Hoffman also argue that women are more likely than men to be employed in part time work or be full time carers, thus they have more time to organise around religious activities. Women also look to the church as a source of gender identity. Greely argues taking care of other family member’s increases women’s religiosity as they have responsibility to their ultimate welfare as well as day to day needs. Davie (1994) argues women’s closeness to birth and death, through child bearing and caring for the sick, brings them closer to ultimate questions such as the meaning of life which religion is concerned with. This is also linked to the way women and men see god.

Women are more likely to be attracted to the new age because women are more associated with nature and the healing role. Heelas and Woodhead found 80% of participants in their holistic milieu study in Kendal found were women. They argue such movements celebrate the natural and involve cults of healing; this gives women a higher status and sense of self worth. Bruce argues women’s experience of child rearing makes them less aggressive, more goal orientated, cooperative and caring. Where men wish to achieve, women wish to feel. Bruce argues this fits the expressive emphasis of the new age. The importance of being authentic rather than acting out roles, for example gender roles, in the new age also attracts women as women are more likely than men to see their ascribed roles as restrictive. Callum Brown (2001) argues the new age self religions, which emphasise subjective experience rather than external authority, attract women through their appeal for autonomy. However it can also be argued that women are attracted to fundamentalism because of the certainties of traditional gender roles women gain.

Glock and Stark (1969) and Stark and Bainbridge (1985) argue people participate in religion because of the compensators for social, organismic and ethical deprivation that religion offers. Glock and Stark argue that these forms of deprivation are more common among women; this explains their higher level of sect membership. Organismic deprivation stems from physical and mental health problems; women are more likely to suffer from ill health thus they seek healing through religion. Women are more likely to be ethically deprived as they’re more likely than men to be morally conservative, thus they regard the world as in moral decline, and thus they’re attracted to sects who share this view. Women are more likely to be socially deprived as they’re more likely to be poor. This further explains why women’s membership is higher then men’s in sects, as sects tend to attract poorer groups.

However, despite traditional gender differences in participation, women are now leaving the church at a faster rate than men. Brierly (2005) found a huge decline in church going for women aged 30-45, with a 16.4% fall in Sunday church attendance between 1990 and 2005. Brierly argues this could be due to pressures of the home; family and work have become intense for women. Women in this age group are more likely to have a young family and Sunday working is particularly high for women. All this equates to having little time for church. Callum Brown argues that since the 1960s women have begun to reject traditional subordinate gender roles. Christianity was closely bound to these traditional roles, thus women’s rejection of subordination leads them to reject traditional religion at the same time.

There are clear ethnic patterns in religious participation, with minority groups having a higher level of religious participation. The UK today is a multi ethnic and multi religious society, with Muslims, Hindus and Black Christians more likely than white Christians to see religion as important and a central part of their lives. Among Christians blacks are more likely than whites to be found in Pentecostal churches, where they make up 40% of the membership. However Modood et al found that despite minority’s having higher participation rates, there’s decline in importance of religion for all ethnic groups and that fewer were observant, especially amongst the second generation.

Sociologists have argued several reasons for ethnic differences in religiosity. One argument that most ethnic minorities originate from poorer countries with traditional cultures; these characteristics produce higher levels of belief and practice. Once they migrate into the UK they and their children uphold the pattern they bring from their country of origin. However it’s argued this disregards the impact of their experiences as immigrants and as minorities in a new society, and how this can give religion a new role in cultural defence and cultural transition.

Bruce (2002) argues religion in such a situation offers support and a sense of cultural identity in an uncertain and hostile environment. Bird (1999) argues religion among minorities can be a foundation for community solidarity and a means of preserving ones culture and language as well as a way of coping with oppression in a racist society. For example the experience of African and Caribbean Christians, where they found white churches weren’t welcoming to them, thus they founded their own black churches which explains their high Pentecostal membership. Religion can also be a means of easing the transition into a new culture by providing support and sense of community for minority groups in their new environment. Will Herberg (1955) argues this as an explanation for high levels of religious participation among first generation immigrants to the USA. Bruce identified a similar pattern of immigration into the UK, where religion provided a focal point the Irish, Caribbean and south Asian communities. However she argues once a group has made the transition into the new culture and wider society religion loses its role and declines in importance, as was the case with Irish catholic immigrants. Ken Pyrce (1979) studied the African Caribbean community in Bristol. He found evidence of cultural defence and cultural defence being important. He argues Pentecostalism is a highly adaptive religion of the oppressed which provides migrants with values appropriate to their new world in which they find themselves in. Pentecostalism helped African Caribbean’s adapt to British society by playing a protestant ethic role by helping members succeed by encouraging self reliance and thrift. Religion played a role in giving mutual support and hope of improving their situation. However, Rastafarianism represented a different response for some African Caribbean’s, as they radically reject wider society as racist and exploitative.

The general pattern concerning age and religious participation is that the older a person is, the more likely they’re to attend church or religious service. However there are two exceptions to this pattern; the under 15’s and over 65’s. The under 15’s are more likely to go to church then other groups as they’re forced to do so by their parents. The over 65’s are more likely to be sick and disabled, thus they’re unable to attend. Higher death rates also make this a smaller group, which reduces the total number available to attend.

Voas and Crockett (2005) argue there are two main sorts of explanation fir age differences in religious participation. One argument is the ageing effect. This is the view that people turn to religion as they get older. For example using evidence from the Kendal project Heelas found people become more interested in spirituality as they get older. She argues as we approach death, we naturally become more concerned about spiritual matters and the afterlife, repentance of misdeeds and so on. Thus that age group is more likely to go to church. Another explanation is the generational effect. This is the view that as society becomes more secular each new generation is less religious then the one before it. Thus there are more old people than young people in church congregations today, not because they’re more attracted to religion as they get older but because they grew up in a time when religion was more popular. Voas and Crockett argue the generational effect is the more significant of the two explanations for age difference in religious participation. They argue that each new generation is only half as religious as their parents. Thus we can expect a continuing average age rise in church goers as the young become less willing to attend. The number of 15-19 year olds attending church has fallen significantly since 1979 and two-fifths of churches have no one under the age of 112 attending services.

30% of church goers are now over 65; Bruce predicts this trend will continue and soon the over 65s will become the majority. Bruce argues the only exception to this trend is Pentecostal churches which continue to attract young members. Gill (1998) argues children no longer receive religious socialisation, thus those brought up without religious beliefs are less likely to become church goers later on in life. Thus it’s likely within two generations Christian beliefs will only be held by a minority.

Class differences also have patterns in the level of religious participation between the working and ruling classes. Marx argued that the working classes are more likely to be religious because of alienation, where the exploitation of capitalism leads them to look to religion as a source of consolation. Marx argues that that religion was the opium of the people; it dulls the pain of exploitation but masks the pain rather than treating the cause. Marx argued the upper classes were less religious as they had wealth and power to compensate, and he argued they used religion cynically to manipulate the working classes. However, Marx has been criticised by Althusser, who argues alienation is unscientific and based on the romantic idea of humans having a true self. This would make the concept an inadequate basis for theory of religion.

However, Stark and Bainbridge have identified high religious participation among the middle and upper classes. They argue this is because of relative deprivation. Relative deprivation is where there’s a subjective sense of being deprived. Thus although the middle class are materially well off, they feel spiritually deprived, especially in today’s materialistic and consumerist world which they perceive as lacing emotional or moral warmth. Thus Wallis argues they turn to religion for sense of community.