Sample Essays for SOC101 PDF

Preview

Summary

Sample essays for SOC101 assignments...

Description

SOC101: INTRODUCTORY SOCIOLOGY

This document contains some sample sociological essays. The essays are the work of CSU students. You must not copy their work.

The essays included in this document are NOT perfect. These essays did NOT all achieve high marks.

These essays should, however, be very helpful to you because they will: (1) give you some ideas about how to write a sociological essay (2) give you some ideas about how to apply sociological concepts to a particular topic

Please remember that you should develop your own writing style, and you must submit your own individual, original work for your assessments.

Example 1: an essay from a SOC101 student How does Sociology explain the ‘social glue’ that binds social groups together? Social glue is best defined as the activities and/or interactions between individuals that strengthen the bonds between people within a group. These activities can be a wide range of things, such as shared views on social matters, enjoying the same activities as those in your group, and even having the same values and morals. However, French functionalist Emile Durkheim had several differing theories as to what held groups together, and believed that culture held one of, if not the most significant roles (Bancroft & Rogers, 2010). ‘Participation in rituals, for example, is likely to draw members of religious groups into common activities that bind them together’ (Coser, 1977, pp. 129-132). Durkheim suggested that these theories, as a facet of sociology, offered a lens through which to observe social glue and explain its implications upon societal groups.

Durkheim believed that out of tradition, morality and culture, came a collective conscience (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2008, p. 13). Shared experiences, much like religious and secular celebrations, help create a feeling of community and commonality. Birthday parties, social events and even communal worship all bring communities and social groups together just as much as anything else, if not more. Durkheim’s theories prevail over others due to both their simplicity, tangibility relative to other theories, and also the fact they are more often relatable to issues experienced by people today. Even common likes and hatred of other groups bring people together (Emirbayer, 2003, pp. 55-59). It is a combination of all of these factors that bind and actually create what we refer to as a social group. Without these, society wouldn’t function as complexly as it does today.

‘Functionalism is a theory of society that explains society in terms of the role of culture in establishing consensus between social groups and the contribution of each component of society

makes to the functioning of the whole’ (van Krieken, 2014, p. 447). Emile Durkheim, as a functionalist, believed that society worked and is based on the ideas of consensus and cooperation. Working together and understanding your neighbour, whilst at the same time relying on them to do their part for the social group, was ultimately what made society function. Durkheim argued that ‘cooperation is made possible through the establishment of a moral order that members of society are socialised into accepting as normal’ (van Krieken, 2014, p. 213).

In Durkheim’s The Division of Labour in Society (1893) he stated that as societies grow in complexity, their basis of sociality also changes. Social solidarity was the concept constructed by Durkheim to explain the social forces that make society possible. He came up with two different concepts to address this change in sociality over the course of history; Mechanical solidarity and Organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity prevailed in traditional society, whereas Organic Solidarity is more so concerned with more modern societies, as in those based after the period of Modernity (period of societies moving away from agriculture and toward Industrialisation, where people migrated from small villages to large towns and cities – 17th century). Regarding Mechanical solidarity, he used the tribes of 19th century Australian Aboriginals to prove his theory. He suggested that because the level of social differentiation was so low, and because those people had only ever experienced similar social experiences within the one social group, they all developed alike beliefs, morals and values that formed the basis of cooperation. Then Durkheim compared Mechanical Solidarity to Organic solidarity.

Within Organic solidarity based societies, individuals specialise in certain fields. Due to so such a high amount of specialisation, a highly diverse group is formed. Each individual within the group, unlike within Mechanical solidarity based societies, has their own set of values and morals by which they believe. Therefore, ‘the basis of social cohesion between the groups members has gone from on being based on similarity, to one based on difference’ (van Krieken, 2014, p. 213). As stated before,

the social solidarity found within Organic Solidarity communities and societies is one based on mutual dependence, as each and every individual relies heavily on everyone within the group to contribute to allow the society to function. Durkheim noticed, especially within growing societies, an increasingly complex division of labour, which in turn reinforced differences between people. No longer would most people live in small communities, have the same jobs, and live the same type of lives e.g., working on a farm with your family. A more complex society consists of many different jobs and people living many different types of lives (Raskoff, 2009).

This is much like within today’s society. As we know, modern societies are far more diverse than they have ever been before. Every individual has their own set of morals, values and understandings. Cooperation and consensus is very much still a large part of society. For example, in large companies or businesses, including within mass media through to small families, each person relies on another to both complete their own work, and to also ensure the continuation of the company or business. The individuals cooperate and depend upon others around them, to work and strive for a common goal. The consensus is that they all work together and perform, much like both the Mechanical and Organic solidarity based societies addressed by Durkheim’s theories. Although Mechanical, Organic and modern solidarity based societies differ greatly, they all do depend upon individuals relying on one another, and sharing values and norms they have to achieve the greater good.

Bibliography Bancroft, A., & Rogers, S. (2010). Emile Durkheim - General Approach. Retrieved from Cardiff University: http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/durkheim4.html Coser, L. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. New York: New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cunningham, J., & Cunningham, S. (2008). Sociology and Social Work . Lancashire : Learning Matters . Emirbayer, M. (2003). Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of Modernity. (I. J. Cohen, Ed.) Wisconsin: Wiley. Raskoff, S. (2009, November 19). Solidarity: What Brings Us Together . Retrieved from Everyday Sociology Blog : http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2009/11/solidarity-what-brings-ustogether.html van Krieken, R. (2014). Sociology (5th Edition ed.). Frenchs Forest , NSW, Australia : Pearson Australia .

Example 2: an essay from a SOC101 student What is cultural homogenisation and cultural heterogeneity? What are their respective societal benefits and harms ? Homogenisation, due to globalization is a seemingly universal emerging culture. It appears, in many localities to have become the dominant culture with the potential to replace many attributes of localised cultures. When a society becomes homogenous, everyone purportedly conforms to the dominant cultural ideals. When looking at globalization, the question is posed; is it really creating a homogeneous society? (Kimmelman, 2010). Cultural heterogeneity, in comparison, produces a multicultural society. This means, cultural diversity in localised society is achieved as regional culture is widely disseminated and accepted by other societies. Homogenisation results in the loss of individual culture and religions, whereas, heterogeneity can result in wealthier countries giving incentive to less developed countries to protect their natural environments and customs as well as, adopt more sustainable practices that enhance the culture (Barker, 2008, pp. 159–162; Basu & Chanda, 2011; Tomlinson, 2002, pp. 45–50, 108–13). Globalization is believed to have created an environment that leads to cultural homogenisation. It has been alleged that globalization has made it easier to reject homogenisation. The increased availability of cultural ideals has been made possible through modern communication and transportation. It is now easier to imitate other cultures through widespread travel and online investigation. These communication and travel advancements make it easier to either strengthen a culture that is already in place or to “create your own culture”

(Scholte, 2005). Due to globalization the Breton language is being saved from decline with people concerned with its extinction motivated to revive it. Worldwide, information about the language can be found in the media which attracts more supporters (Hooper, 2011). Other cultures that were once dying out, such as the revival of traditional Appalachian and traditional Chinese cultures have also been revived through improved communication. (Nuwer, 2014). Bollywood is an example where western technology has been used in India to reinforce and strengthen their local culture and national identity. The rejection of Hollywood produced films in favour of their own production has preserved their own culture and country unity by using western technology (Tyrell, n.d., pp. 312318). Another form of rejection of global homogenisation is the idea that anyone with access to information about other cultures can create their own culture, “picking and choosing” different aspects of different cultures that were suited to each individual. In Europe there is a resurgence of local cultures to counter “global influences” (Kimmelman, 2010). Localised differences around social traditions, regardless of the interconnectivity created by the internet, media and other forms of globalization, cultures continue, despite global connectivity. Attractive features from other cultures are accepted to further the value of local cultural advantages. The nature of mankind tends to have a bias towards heterogeneity (Lewin, 2014, pp. 212213). This leads to the view that true homogenisation is difficult to achieve naturally due to the propensity towards individuality and personal differences within cultural groups, for example the Christian faith is presented in hundreds of different forms, while having a common focus. While the Christian faith appears homogeneous, it is unity in diversity. It could be considered that the existence of

homogenous cultures can only be attained by force, causing people to suppress individuality (Grunlan & Reimer, 2001, pp. 311-312, 401-405). Natural diversity of human experience is too significant to focus on common ideas that emerge as different interpretations of focus as they are applied to everyday life. This implies that each individual will form a different view of the world. Left to themselves, humans naturally form associations of beneficial diversity. Only if their thinking and behaviours are restricted through external imposition, can cultural homogeneity arise (Hutchinson, 2003, p. 53). Imposed homogeneous cultural activity has occurred in Asia and Europe where Japan practiced industrialized forms of homogeneous culture; China was forced into homogeneous culture through Mao Tse-Tung rule, Hitler was another example. Forced homogeneous cultures have the side effect of radicalization where members want to force others to follow the culture exactly. It appears that the internet, while considered heterogeneous material has more of a homogeneous effect of distilling common ideas from a large population, providing an opportunity of homogeneous radicalization (Geeraerts, 2012, pp. 25-30). If the internet does impose a homogeneous culture, it could be the culture of isolation in condensed sub-cultures of agreement and withdrawal from society. Geeraerts explains that this is almost like a “non-culture”, the gaming and belief cultures produced through internet usage, where the members can become less concerned with the wellbeing of others (1997, pp. 25-30). Such collusive and isolated members can focus on violence that then purportedly has the potential of escalating to the remainder of society in social harm (Geeraerts, 2012, pp. 25-30; Porter, 1997, p. 65).

It has been found that globalization does not necessarily support a homogeneous culture as some think. Global interconnectivity has shown to help in the preservation of cultures that support the concept of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity promotes innovation and social development, whereas homogenisation of society gives force in a narrow common cause not always beneficial to society. Human individuality is a natural barrier to any extended form of homogenisation but supports a bias to heterogeneous cultural activity. Homogeneous culture appears to occur through the control and suppression of individuality through human intervention (Geeraerts, 2012, pp. 25-30; Porter, 1997, p. 65). Globalization through the internet, for those lacking their own solid identity provides a homogeneous platform for the promotion of their cause and radicalization of others. However, globalization and connectivity generally brings together diversity, through heterogeneity that can benefit progressive thought and better ideas for achieving the requirements for survival. Culture promotes survival in a bias towards heterogeneous individuality. Culture is never static but evolves over time, it can never be lost due to its nature. Culture changes, through the bias of heterogeneity and is imbedded in individual differences

References Barker, C. (2008). Cultural studies: Theory and practice (3 rd ed.). Los Angeles, United States: Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9Vcs0QIfM4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Basu, P. P. & Chanda, I. (2011). Locating cultural change. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publishing. Retrieved from https://au.sagepub.com/engb/oce/locating-cultural-change/book236109 Geeraerts, S. (2012). Digital radicalization of youth. Social Cosmos 3(1), 25-32. Retrieved from https://socialcosmos.library.uu.nl/index.php/sc/article/view/41/37 Grunlan, S. & Reimer, M. (2001). Christian perspectives on sociology. Oregon, United States: Wipf & Stock Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.readings.com.au/products/1185066/christian-perspectives-onsociology Hooper, S. (2011, January, 5). Bretons fight to save language from extinction [Documentary]. Retrieved from CNN website: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/11/brittany.language/ Hutchinson, E, D. (2003). Dimensions of human behaviour: Person and environment (2nd ed.). California, United States: Sage Publishing. Kimmelman, M. (2010, April, 14). D.I.Y. Culture. The New York Times. Retrieved from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/arts/18abroad.html?_r=0 Lewin, P. (2014). The meaning and implications of heterogeneity [Unpublished paper]. Texas, United States: University of Texas. Retrieved from https://works.bepress.com/peter_lewin/) Lule, J. (2011). Globalization and media: Global village of Babel. Lanham, United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.csuau.eblib.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx? p=886809&echo=1&userid=mBw1szZ2x8EPmCnM%2b2UA2Q%3d%3d &tstamp=1466141571&id=098133361DE6F1B1DD76D810538D00BCB 5EE2870 Nuwer, R. (2014, June, 6). Languages: Why we must save dying tongues [Online article]. Retrieved from BBC website: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140606-why-we-must-save-dyinglanguages Porter, D. (1997). Internet culture. New York, United States: Routledge. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xUDcAAAAQBAJ&printsec=fron tcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). New York, United States: Palgrave MacMillan. Retrieved from https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/locating-cultural-change/book236109 Tomlinson, J. (2002). Cultural imperialism: A critical introduction. Michigan, United States: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library. Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=acls;idno=heb02149.0001.001 Tyrell, H. (n.d.). Bollywood vs Hollywood: Battle of the dream factories [Essay]. Retrieved from Humanities Lab Stanford website: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd =2&ved=0ahUKEwjmqsSsqa7NAhVGlZQKHYmlD8wQFggfMAE&url= http%3A%2F%2Fhumanitieslab.stanford.edu%2F136%2Fadmin%2Fdow nload.html%3Fattachid%3D456898&usg=AFQjCNHugtErPSj6_Bi0qibst IksB-S_8A

Example 3: an essay from a CSU student in a second-year sociology subject How is class and stratification linked to health inequality?

The correlation between class and health has framed modern studies concerning the complexities surrounding exposure to health problems and the experience of illness. According to the World Health Organisation (1948) health is defined as a state of complete physical, social and mental wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Further, health encapsulates the cultural context in which an individual lives. The historical and contemporary motivation for sociological interest in health disparities, is embedded in the indisputable fact that individuals differ in their physical health profiles, regardless of how health is defined (Read & Gorman, 2010, p. 373). By applying Bottero’s theory of stratification (2005), this essay will examine how class, stratification, and levels of autonomy shape health inequalities with only the formation of egalitarian health policies encapsulating universal access to health care decreasing any disparities. Class is an overarching term which embodies status, wealth, culture, background and employment (Craib, 2002, p. 344). An individual’s location in their community’s class hierarchy has a significant impact on their physical health, their ability to receive sufficient medical care and nourishment, and their life expectancy. Further, studies of morbidity and mortality have steadily revealed that class status is the greatest determining factor in an individual's level of access to healthcare (‘Social class and health,’ 2016, May 26., para 1) with individuals of lower class status experiencing a vast array of health problems which are only exacerbated by their limited access to health care. An example of how class relates to health inequality is highlighted in the difficulties experienced by indigenous people in Australia. A study conducted by Markwick, Ansari,

Sullivan, Parsons, and McNeil (2014) sought to identify the determinants of health of Aboriginal adults compared with their non-Aboriginal counterparts (Markwick et al., 2014, p. 91). The investigation revealed that according to class status Aboriginal people are severely

disadvantaged compared with their non-Aboriginal equivalents, with lower household incomes and lower employment rates. (Markwick et al., 2014, p. 91). Specifically, lower class status has been shown to have a significant adverse impact on health (Kondo et al., 2009, p. 1) with low household income resulting in less disposable income to purchase healthy foods, engage in physical activity, and be able to afford safe and adequate healthcare. Furthermore, the study found that the majority of Aboriginal people acquired a lower level of educational attainment thereby limiting their likelihood of obtaining a job that pays a living wage, and as a consequence, positions them at a higher risk of unemployment and lower levels of health literacy (Markwick et al., 2014, p. 7). The persistence of health ...