13,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
The essential revision guide for A–level Sociology from trusted and best–selling author Ken Browne.
Together with
Sociology for AQA Revision Guide 1, this indispensable book provides everything you need to revise for the exams, with a clear topic–by–topic layout to recap key theories and central ideas.
The revision guide maps perfectly onto Ken Browne, Jonathan Blundell and Pamela Law's
Sociology for AQA Volume 2 with each topic cross–referenced to the main textbook so you can revisit any sections you need to.
The book includes a guide to exam questions – and how to answer them – with sample worked answers showing how to achieve top marks. All specification options are covered, with exam tips throughout the book.
With this revision guide to take you through the exam and
Sociology for AQA Volume 2 to develop your sociological imagination, Ken Browne provides the complete resource for success in sociology.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 404
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
About this Guide
1 Preparing for the Exam and Answering Questions
2 Beliefs in Society
3 Global Development
4 The Media
5 Stratification and Differentiation
6 Theory and Methods
7 Crime and Deviance
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
Sociology for AQA Revision Guide 2
2nd-Year A Level
KEN BROWNE
polity
Copyright © Ken Browne 2017
The right of Ken Browne to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2017 by Polity Press
Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press350 Main StreetMalden, MA 02148, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-1629-2
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com
ABOUT THIS GUIDE
This revision guide, based on examiners’ advice and Browne, Blundell and Law’s Sociology for AQA Volume 2: 2nd-Year A Level (Polity 2016), covers the second year of A level. It provides a quick overall summary for final revision, and assumes you already know and can apply much of the material in the accompanying textbook – page references in the textbook are included to help you find the relevant sections.
The subject content of the first year of the AQA A level specification is identical to the AS. This is covered in Ken Browne’s Sociology for AQA Volume 1: AS and 1st-Year A Level (Polity 2015), and in the accompanying revision guide, Ken Browne’s Sociology for AQA Revision Guide 1: AS and 1st-Year A Level (Polity 2017). For comprehensive and complete coverage at A level, you will need both textbooks and the first-year revision guide, as well as this one.
Although the subject content for the first year is the same as for AS, the A level exam papers have some different types of questions from those in the AS exam papers, and contain an additional Theory and Methods question on paper 1 which may draw on material from the second year of the course. The A level also includes more Topics in Sociology options, which are covered in this guide and the accompanying textbook.
1PREPARING FOR THE EXAM AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS
About the A level exam
Three exam papers. Each worth 80 marks and each 2 hours.All questions are compulsory – no choice
Paper 1: Education with Theory and Methods
Paper 2: Topics in Sociology
Paper 3: Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods
Education: 50 marks
One 4-mark question:
Outline two . . . (ways/factors/reasons, etc.) (4 marks)
One 6-mark question: Outline three . . . (6 marks)
One 10-mark question, linked to an Item:
Applying material from Item [A], analyse two . . . (10 marks)
One 30-mark extended essay, linked to an Item:
Applying material from Item [B] and your knowledge, evaluate . . . (the view/usefulness of/explanations, etc.) (30 marks)
Methods in Context: 20 marks
One 20-mark essay, linked to an Item, on applying a particular research method to a particular educational context/situation: Applying material from Item [C] and your knowledge of research methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of using (a research method) to investigate (an issue in education) (20 marks)
Theory and Methods: 10 marks
One 10-mark question:
Outline and explain two . . . (reasons/ways, etc.) (10 marks)
Section A: 40 marks
Choose ONE from Culture and Identity; Families and Households; Health; Work, Poverty and Welfare. One 10-mark question:
Outline and explain two . . . (reasons/explanations, etc.) (10 marks)
One 10-mark question, linked to an Item:
Applying material from Item [A], analyse two . . . (10 marks)
One 20-mark question, linked to an Item:
Applying material from Item [B] and your knowledge, evaluate
. . . (the view/usefulness of/explanations, etc.) (20 marks)
Section B: 40 marks
Choose ONE from Beliefs in Society; Global Development; The Media; Stratification and Differentiation.
The questions follow the same format as those in Section A
Crime and Deviance: 50 marks
One 4-mark question:
Outline two . . . (ways/factors/reasons, etc.) (4 marks)
One 6-mark question: Outline three . . . (6 marks)
One 10-mark question, linked to an Item:
Applying material from Item [A], analyse two . . . (10 marks)
One 30-mark extended essay, linked to an Item:
Applying material from Item [B] and your knowledge, evaluate . . . (the view/usefulness of/explanations, etc.) (30 marks)
Theory and Methods: 30 marks
One 10-mark question:
Outline and explain two . . . (reasons/explanations etc.) (10 marks)
One 20-mark question, linked to an Item:
Applying material from Item [C] and your knowledge, evaluate . . . (the view/usefulness of/explanations, etc.) (20 marks)
What will you be examined on?
At A level Sociology, you are assessed on three main objectives:
AO1: Knowledge and understanding (44% of the marks)
This involves demonstrating what you actually know – your knowledge and understanding of sociological theories, concepts, key terms and evidence, and of the range of research methods and sources of information used by sociologists, and the practical, ethical and theoretical issues arising in sociological research.
AO2: Application (31% of the marks)
This involves applying sociological theories, concepts, evidence and research methods to the issues raised in the exam question. You must show how the material – the sociologists, theories, research, methods and examples you use – are relevant (applied) to the question being asked.
AO3: Analysis and evaluation (25% of the marks)
Analysis means being able to explain the issue or point that is being raised in the question, such as being able to recognise sociologically significant information. Evaluation involves making critical points, such as the strengths and weaknesses of sociological theories and evidence, presenting arguments, making judgements and reaching conclusions based on the arguments and evidence for and against a view or statement presented in the question.
EXAM TIPS:
➤
Always focus on the wording of the question and apply what you know to the specific issue being asked about – don’t generalise.
➤
Where the question involves an Item, you must refer to that Item: e.g. ‘As shown by Item [A] . . .’
See pages viii–ix in the accompanying textbook to find out more about how to address these three objectives in your exam answers.
How to answer 4- and 6-mark questions
These questions appear in the Education section of Paper 1, and in the Crime and Deviance section of Paper 3, and take the form:
Outline two/three . . . (ways/factors/reasons/advantages/differences, etc.).
Outline means you identify a reason/factor/idea/concept, etc., say what it means, and briefly expand on its relevance to that question, perhaps using an example. Make the two/three points clear to the examiner by using firstly. . ., secondly. . ., etc.. . .
Example of a top-mark answer
Q. Outline three reasons why the media may exaggerate the extent of crime in society. (6 marks)
A. Firstly, journalists report crime using values and assumptions about what they think will appeal to media audiences. These are called news values. [1 mark for identifying news values] This means the media are more likely to report dramatic crimes like serious violence or robbery which are more newsworthy and attract audiences, and ignore more routine everyday offences like shoplifting. This can exaggerate the extent of crime by giving the impression that most crime is very serious when in reality most offences are, in comparison, relatively trivial. [+1 mark for explaining link to question – exaggeration of crime]
(2 marks awarded)
Secondly, the media often see themselves as playing the role of moral entrepreneurs and protecting what they see as society’s main values. [1 mark for media as moral entrepreneurs] They do this by labelling and stereotyping of individuals and groups who commit offences they see as a serious threat to these values. They might exaggerate such crimes e.g. child abuse or violence by young people, to cause a moral panic and public outcry to encourage action to be taken against them. [+1 mark for explaining link to exaggeration of crime]
(2 marks awarded)
Thirdly, the media may exaggerate crime by presenting it as infotainment, packaged to entertain and thrill audiences with dramatic reconstructions of high profile individual offences e.g. Crimewatch. [1 mark for infotainment] This means the media focus on particular rare dramatic incidents, like murder, rather than less dramatic more common offences, and so give an exaggerated impression of the extent of these crimes to entertain audiences. [+1 mark for linking infotainment to exaggeration of crime]
(2 marks awarded)
How to answer 10-mark questions
These questions take two forms:
Question style 1
Outline and explain two . . . (ways/factors/reasons/advantages/differences, etc.)
➤
These questions appear in the Theory and Methods sections of Paper 1 and Paper 3, and in both sections A and B of Paper 2.
➤
You should spend about 15 minutes on these questions, writing about 1–1½ pages/400 words. There is no need for an introduction or conclusion.
Outline and explain means you first identify a reason/factor/idea/concept, etc. – say what it means – and then expand on how it explains the issue in the question (e.g. ‘This means that . . .’). Then expand on these reasons, etc., and show how they are relevant to the question, perhaps using examples. Make the two points clear to the examiner by using, e.g., the first reason . . ., the second reason . . ..
Answer these questions using this PEL formula:
Point – what are the issues the question raises? State your first reason.
Explain in more detail how your reason links to the question, and explains it. Give evidence from research studies or examples to back up/illustrate your explanation.
Link your point back to the question . . . e.g. This shows . . . A useful device is to refer back to the wording of the question.
DO THIS TWICE – ONCE FOR EACH REASON.
EXAM TIP:
To get high application marks, you need to refer to some wider issues from your course, e.g. explaining rising divorce due to secularisation; explaining people’s fear of crime due to media exaggeration; explaining the weaknesses of participant observation because positivists don’t see it as scientific.
Example of a top-band ‘outline and explain’ answer
Q. Outline and explain two ways in which the emergence of religious fundamentalism may be a consequence of globalisation. (10 marks)
A. Religious fundamentalism means people base their religious beliefs on the literal meaning of religious texts, and promote norms and values that they think conform with the meanings of those texts e.g. ideas about the values of traditional family life and the division of labour between men and women into instrumental and expressive roles. In almost every major religion in the world there has been a growth of fundamentalism in the last 25–30 years e.g. Christian and Islamic fundamentalism. Bruce suggests this growth is due to globalisation, as countries around the world become more interconnected, and the cultures of different countries become more alike.
[Examiner comment: Good identification of the meaning of religious fundamentalism and globalisation, and good example of family values]
The first way the emergence of fundamentalism may be a consequence of globalisation is shown by cultural imperialism. This means that the world’s culture is increasingly becoming dominated by Western cultural values and a secular culture spread by a globalised but mainly Western-based media, including the internet. Bruce suggests this has threatened traditional religious beliefs in many countries, and religious fundamentalism, like Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, has emerged as a form of cultural defence to re-establish and enforce traditional religious values e.g. on the family, appropriate dress and gender roles, and to resist the threats to them posed by this secular Western culture.
[Examiner comment: Well-developed and explained first consequence (cultural imperialism and secular culture) linked clearly to globalisation via media, and explanation using cultural defence, with good examples]
A second way fundamentalism might be a result of globalisation is shown by what’s been called deterritorialisation. This means that religions are less tied to particular countries or areas of the world e.g.
Muslims and Christians are now found in most countries. This has happened because of the big growth in migration as the world becomes more interconnected, and also because the globalised media, cheaper and faster air travel, and mass tourism have brought different cultures and religions into closer contact than ever before. Huntington suggests that this can lead to a clash of civilisations between the lifestyles, beliefs and cultures linked to different religions e.g. Western Christianity’s growing acceptance of divorce, homosexuality, and changing gender roles, which some Christians and Muslims reject. Kurtz says this aspect of globalisation has created a culture war leading to a strengthening of traditional religious traditions as shown by the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, and Christian fundamentalism especially in the US, as a way of strengthening traditional beliefs and avoiding contamination of traditional beliefs by ideas drawn from other religions or ideas in the same religion, as in Christian fundamentalism.
[Examiner comment: Well-developed and explained second consequence (deterritorialisation) again linked clearly to various relevant features of globalisation (migration, etc.) and culture wars/clash of civilisations. Good use of examples (divorce, gender roles and sexuality)]
Question style 2
Applying material from Item [A], analyse two. . . (ways/factors/reasons/advantages/differences, etc.)
➤
These questions appear in the Education section of Paper 1, sections A and B of Paper 2, and the Crime and Deviance section of Paper 3.
➤
You should spend about 15 minutes on these questions, writing about 1–1½ pages/400 words. There is no need for an introduction or general conclusion.
Analyse means you first identify a reason/factor/idea/concept, etc. – say what it means – and then present and expand on an argument about how it explains the issue in the question, e.g. ‘functionalists believe this shows . . .’. Then make a brief judgement on that argument, e.g. ‘but Marxists see this as inadequate . . .’. Make the two points clear to the examiner by using, for example, the first reason . . ., the second reason . . ..
Answer these questions using this PEAL formula:
Point – Identify the issue the question raises, and state your first reason, which must be developed from something in the Item.
Explain and Argue – Describe in more detail how your reason links to the question, and explains it. Give evidence from the Item, related research studies or examples to back up/illustrate your explanation/argument. Make a brief judgement of the strengths/weaknesses/limitations of your argument.
Link – Tie your reason back to the Item and the question and reach a brief conclusion, e.g. This shows . . .. A useful device is to refer back to the wording of the question.
DO THIS TWICE – ONCE FOR EACH REASON.
EXAM TIP:
You MUST apply ONLY material in the Item in these questions to get top marks – you will get limited to the bottom mark band if you only use material from elsewhere that is not referenced in the Item in some way. Use words like ‘As shown in Item [A] . . .’, ‘As Item [A] suggests . . .’, or quote words from the Item, to show the examiner you’re doing this.
Example of a top-band ‘Applying material from Item [A], analyse two . . .’ answer
Q. Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.
Item A
State crimes are those carried out by the state in pursuit of its policies, and involve violations of human rights as defined by international law. It can be difficult to investigate the extent of state crimes, because governments have the power to adopt strategies to either deny or justify human rights abuses, or to reclassify them as something else that is not criminal.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two reasons why it may be difficult for sociologists to investigate the extent of state crimes.
(10 marks)
A. As Item A says, state crimes involve violations of human rights which are defined by international law. These include offences like torture, war crimes, genocide, imprisonment without a fair trial and cruel or unjustified punishments.
The first reason it can be difficult to investigate the extent of state crimes is because, as Item A suggests, governments use strategies to deny they are committing such offences. Cohen called these strategies of denial. These are used to deny human rights abuses are occurring, or to reclassify them as something else that is not criminal, or as temporary lapses, or deny state responsibility by scapegoating rogue individuals acting without state approval. Even if there are human rights abuses, Cohen points out states adopt techniques of neutralisation to try to deny they were really abuses, by justifying them by an appeal to higher loyalties e.g. the detention without trial and torture of terrorist suspects, might be denied as real human rights crimes as they are justified by the need to protect the human rights of innocent people. Such strategies of denial and techniques of neutralisation mean it is sometimes difficult to investigate the extent of state crime because it is hard to define or discover what is or isn’t a state crime under international law.
[Examiner comment: Well-explained and analysed reason. Good use of examples. Clearly linked to the Item (‘strategies to deny, etc.’) and to the question]
A second reason is the power of governments referred to in Item A. Government power can control information and cover up state illegal activities. State secrecy means there are no official statistics or victim surveys to show the extent of such crime, and researchers often have to rely on secondary data like media reports or reports by victims, which may not be valid as they could be exaggerated. Tombs and Whyte point out that this power of governments means that researchers often face strong official resistance to hinder them from researching state crimes e.g. threats, refusals to provide funding or access to official documents. It might mean the ethical risks of harm to the researcher, as in less democratic societies sociologists risk imprisonment, torture or death, and even in democracies the state can use the law, like the Official Secrets Act, to control and prosecute researchers who investigate state crimes.
As Item A points out, governments therefore have the power to make it difficult for sociologists to research state crimes, by problems for sociologists in discovering both what to investigate, and practical and ethical barriers to investigating their extent.
[Examiner comment: A second well-explained and analysed reason. Issue of state power is picked up and developed from the Item (‘governments have the power . . .’), with a good analysis of why this power can make it a difficult topic to research]
How to get top marks in the 20-mark questions
Note: the 20-mark Methods in Context question on Paper 1 is covered in the first year revision guide (pages 10–12).
These questions appear in both sections A and B of Paper 2, and in the Theory and Methods section of Paper 3, and take the form:
Applying material from Item [A] and your knowledge, evaluate . . . (the problems/the view/the advantages/the disadvantages, etc.) (20 marks).
You should spend about 30 minutes on these questions, writing about 2–3 pages/600–750 words.
Evaluate means you should make criticisms, and weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of sociological theories, views and evidence provided in the Item and from your own knowledge gained during your course, and present arguments and alternative views, make judgements and reach conclusions based on the arguments and evidence you’ve provided in your answer, and linked backed to the material in the Item.
Write a brief introduction identifying the issues/concepts/ideas/views shown in the Item (‘As Item [A] suggests . . .’), then organise your answer using this PEEL formula:
Point(s) – Identify the issue/concept/idea/research you’re raising (linked to the information in the Item).
Explain – Describe in more detail, referring to evidence from research or examples, and drawing on material in the Item and your own knowledge gained during your course
Evaluate – Consider any strengths/weaknesses/alternative views to that shown in the Item, and to the points you raise from your own knowledge
Link – Tie your points back to the Item, e.g. ‘This shows the view in Item [A] is mistaken.’ Refer back to the wording of the question.
EXAM TIP:
To get top marks you MUST apply/use material referred to in the Item – ideally use words like ‘As shown in Item [A] . . .’, ‘As Item [A] suggests . . .’, or quote words from the Item, as well as using your own knowledge.
Example of a top-band answer
Q. Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.
Item A
Some argue that it is possible and desirable for sociologists to study society in a completely value-free, objective way. Others suggest that sociologists cannot avoid the influence of values completely, and it is therefore impossible for them to conduct value-free research. A third position is that sociology should not be value-free, even if it were possible, and research should involve a value commitment to improving the lives of the disadvantaged.
Applying material from Item A and your knowledge, evaluate the view that value-freedom is an ideal to strive for in sociology, but is impossible to achieve.
(20 marks)
A. The value-free objective study of society means that the personal opinions, prejudices and values of sociologists should not influence their research. As Item A suggests, there are three main views on whether it is possible or desirable to achieve this.
Positivists argue sociology can be value-free as it involves studying objective social facts ‘out there’ in society which exist independently of researchers and which can be observed and measured. Value-freedom is achieved if researchers study social facts using the hypothetico-deductive scientific approach like that used in the natural sciences, and remain detached and avoid personal involvement in their studies by using quantitative methods like the use of official statistics, and impersonal structured questionnaires and interviews. This value freedom is reinforced by letting other researchers repeat research, or check findings for any bias arising from the researcher’s values. An example of this value-free positivist approach is Durkheim’s study of the social causes of suicide. Durkheim argued suicide rates were caused by the social facts of social integration and moral regulation, which were social forces that existed independently of the researchers’ values, and could be discovered by using objective suicide statistics.
Positivists are criticised by those who say it is impossible to conduct value-free research, as Item A suggests. This is because any research, including that of positivists, involves some subjective assumptions about how society operates, what’s worth studying, and how data is interpreted. Interpretivists don’t believe there are objective social facts ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered. Society is socially constructed by the actions of individuals, who act in the ways they do because of the meanings they give to their behaviour. The only way to understand these meanings is by sociologists using their values to judge the significance of these meanings. This can only be achieved by using qualitative research methods like unstructured interviews or participant observation which enable close involvement with those being researched, not the detachment positivists see as important for value-freedom. Weber called this Verstehen. Positivists criticise this for not being value-free, as the process of interpretation involves the researchers’ own values and judgements, and it is hard for others to check whether their interpretations are correct. So value judgements affect the research methods used and the types of data (quantitative or qualitative) that are collected. This is shown by Atkinson’s interpretivist approach to suicide. He sees suicide statistics as social constructions, not as the objective social facts positivists claim. They are just a record of the subjective opinions of coroners that result in some sudden deaths being labelled as suicide while others are not.
Value judgements affect what topic to research e.g. feminists choosing to study inequalities between men and women in patriarchal societies, or Marxists studying class divisions and social conflict. Values also influence what questions are asked, and what findings to include in research reports. The values of those funding research can also influence the research topic and the methods used e.g. funders often prefer research topics that are useful to them, and positivist statistical evidence rather than the qualitative data used by interpretivists. For these reasons, it is impossible for sociology to be completely value-free.
Item A identifies a third view that sociology should not strive for value-freedom, even if it was possible to achieve. Gouldner argues that value-freedom is a myth, and just an ideology used by sociologists to build their careers by selling their supposedly value-free objective research to the highest bidders. Sociologists should show value commitment and take responsibility for the uses and consequences of their research. Becker argued all knowledge favours somebody, and values are unavoidable when trying to understand and judge the significance of what you’re studying. He argues sociologists should make a clear value commitment and choose whose side they’re on when choosing what to research. This is shown by the value commitment of feminist sociologists like Oakley to improving the lives of women by their research on housework and gender inequalities in the family.
As the question suggests, complete value-freedom is impossible to achieve for the reasons given above. However, although values will influence the choice of topic and method, Weber argued sociologists, regardless of whether or not they show value commitment, should strive to keep their values out of the actual research process itself, otherwise they will only produce biased and invalid research findings. Weber suggested sociologists could achieve this by collecting data using carefully planned research methods, drawing conclusions based only on this evidence, and making this evidence available to others to scrutinise for any bias in findings due to the researcher’s values.
[Examiner comment: Overall, this is a good and substantial answer, which shows a fairly sophisticated knowledge and understanding of a variety of issues relating to the value-freedom debate. There is good use and application of appropriate concepts, theories and reference to research methods and these are used accurately. The answer is well ordered and uses the Item very effectively to answer the question. It keeps a clear focus on the question throughout, and applies the information in Item A well for ongoing analysis and evaluation to contrast the different positions. Examples and research are appropriate and applied well to the question (suicide/Durkheim/Atkinson, Marxism, feminism, etc.). The conclusion is distinctive and appropriate, and ties everything together linked directly back to the question]
How to answer 30-mark questions
These appear in the Education section of Paper 1, and the Crime and Deviance section of Paper 3, and take the following form:
Applying material from Item [B] and your knowledge, evaluate . . . (the view/usefulness of/explanations, etc.)
You should spend about 45 minutes on these questions, writing about 3–4 pages/900–1,000 words.
Evaluate means you should make criticisms, and weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of sociological theories, views and evidence provided in the Item and from your own knowledge gained during your course, and present arguments and alternative views, make judgements and reach conclusions based on the arguments and evidence you’ve provided in your answer, and linked backed to the material in the Item.
You can use the PEEL formula discussed earlier to organise your essay.
EXAM TIP:
To get top marks you MUST apply/use material referred to in the Item – ideally use words like ‘As shown in Item [A] . . .’, ‘As Item [A] suggests . . .’, or quote words from the Item, as well as using your own (relevant) knowledge from anywhere else in your Sociology course.
Example of a top-band answer
Q. Read Item B below and answer the question that follows.
Item B
Punishment of criminals may act in various ways: as retribution or revenge; as rehabilitation to prevent reoffending; as deterrence to others; as restoration of the harm caused to victims; as social protection from those who are dangerous; as reinforcement of social values; or as an assertion of the power and authority of a sovereign or of a dominant social class.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations of the role of punishment in the prevention and reduction of crime.
(30 marks)
A. Functionalists see the main aims of punishment identified in item B, except for the final one, as important to prevent and reduce crime and maintain social stability and conformity. Foucault and Marxists view punishment as mainly concerned with asserting the power and control of a sovereign or a dominant social class.
Functionalists like Durkheim argue laws are based on a value consensus, which keeps society stable in everyone’s interests. Punishment, as identified in Item B, helps to prevent and reduce threats to social solidarity and stability. Retribution, for example, strengthens social values by highlighting the rules about right and wrong behaviour, and punishing those who don’t conform to them. Punishment also acts as deterrence, as Item B suggests, by showing others the consequences of breaking laws e.g. the severe sentences given for offences normally seen as minor after the 2011 riots. Through rehabilitation, punishment aims to integrate offenders back into society, and so reduce their risk of reoffending. Restorative justice aims to make offenders realise the harm they have caused to victims, and to restore some of the damage done to them to encourage them not to offend again and so reduce crime. Punishment, particularly incapacitation through imprisonment, also protects society from the most dangerous criminals who are most likely to reoffend when retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence don’t work. Functionalists therefore see punishment acting in various ways to reduce crime and protect society, social values and stability.
Marxists argue that laws are not based on a value consensus as functionalists suggest, but on ruling class ideology. Punishment is part of the repressive state apparatus aimed at social control of the working class in the interests of the ruling class, as Item B suggests. The most severe punishments are usually handed out to the most disadvantaged who have the least power in society e.g. poor people or those from minority ethnic groups, particularly black men. Newburn argues middle class white-collar and corporate criminals rarely face punishment for wrong-doing, and if they do are usually leniently sentenced compared to working class criminals. Punishment therefore doesn’t prevent or reduce the crimes of the powerful, like white collar, corporate, state and green crimes, and supports ruling class ideology by suggesting the working class are the main criminals.
Marxist approaches have been criticised because it is hard to see all punishments linked to ruling class interests e.g. penalties for assault and drug abuse, and speeding fines seem to fit more with the functionalist view of punishments concerned with protecting social norms in the interests of everyone.
A criticism of the role of punishments like imprisonment, fines, curfew orders or community punishment in preventing or reducing crime is that they may be dysfunctional, and not help in re-establishing social order as functionalists suggest. Right realists, for example, see punishment as a key way of deterring people from offending by increasing the costs of crime, but some punishments, especially prisons, can actually create more crime rather than preventing or reducing it. Interactionists like Goffman suggest prison subcultures make bad people worse rather than rehabilitating them and only confirm the criminal label. Becker suggests this labelling becomes a master status, and the stigma attached to offenders can make it difficult for them to re-enter conforming mainstream society successfully e.g. jobs are hard to find, and increases the risk of re-offending. For some young offenders, having a criminal record like an ASBO or community payback order can be a status symbol giving street-cred and encouraging more crime. Punishments therefore may encourage more crime not reduce it.
Item B also refers to the role of punishment in asserting the power of a sovereign, with those threatening this power defined as criminals. Foucault sees public brutal punishments like cutting off hands and public hanging as reducing crime by deterring people by public demonstrations of the supreme power of the sovereign – the monarch – over criminals. He referred to this form of punishment as sovereign power.
Foucault argued sovereign power has now been replaced in most countries by disciplinary power. This involves punishment with constant surveillance e.g. in prisons, through probation, curfews and electronic tagging. Foucault thought constant surveillance would reduce crime by encouraging criminals to control their own behaviour. Foucault saw this disciplinary power of surveillance extending into wide areas of life in contemporary society e.g. CCTV, automatic number plate recognition and mobile phone tracking, which have now probably replaced punishment as the main form of deterrence in the prevention and reduction of crime. The main criticism of this is that criminals are now aware of widespread surveillance, so will take steps to avoid it, so it may not be as effective as punishment as a deterrent to crime.
Feminists argue that many crimes by men against women in patriarchal societies e.g. rape, sexual assaults, and domestic violence, don’t get reported to the police, because many don’t result in conviction and punishment of offenders. Feminists argue more convictions and punishment may deter men from committing such offences once they realise they are less likely to get away with them. Feminists also point out that women often face harsher punishments for similar offences to those committed by men, as socialisation means women are generally expected to be more conformist than men. Punishment may make it harder to reduce further crime by women, as they face double stigmatisation for being both criminal and women, which may make a return to conformity after labelling more difficult.
As suggested above, the various aims of punishment mentioned in Item B are not always successful in reducing and preventing crime. Left realists argue that tackling the risk factors for crime, like poverty, may be more effective than punishment after the event. Right realists see punishment as important, but also emphasise other measures like stricter socialisation in families e.g. parenting orders, and reducing opportunities for crime by situational crime prevention, and zero tolerance policing to prevent the decline of neighbourhoods and increasing social disorder and crime as suggested by Wilson and Kelling’s broken windows thesis.
To conclude, some of the aims of punishment in Item B may not be effective. They could increase rather than reduce and prevent crime, and the alternative measures suggested by left and right realists may work better than punishment in reducing crime.
[Examiner commentary: This is a clearly written answer that uses the language of sociology appropriately and shows good knowledge and understanding of a range of ways punishment may operate to prevent and reduce crime. The material is relevant, and links directly to the question and the purposes of punishment referred to in Item B. It keeps a clear focus on the question throughout. There is ongoing analysis, and some explicit evaluation, and the answer compares/contrasts in an evaluative way a range of perspectives on the role of punishment explicitly linked to the question and Item B. There is good use and application of appropriate concepts and theories, and these are used accurately. The conclusion is appropriate, and ties everything back to the Item and the question. There are enough points to make this a top band answer]
2BELIEFS IN SOCIETY
TOPIC 1
Ideology, science and religion, including both Christian and non-Christian religious traditions (pages 4–15)
Belief systems (pages 4–6)
Beliefs are ideas about things we hold to be true. There are three main types:
➤
Religion
– Beliefs in supernatural powers or spiritual forces of some kind.
➤
Ideology –
Beliefs that provide a means of interpreting the world and that represent the outlook, and justify the interests, of a social group:
➠
Pluralist ideology
suggests that there are many different types of social group, each with its own ideology. There is no single dominant ideology.
➠
Dominant ideology
is a Marxist view that the dominant ideas in society are those held by the most powerful groups and, in particular, by the ruling class in society. It justifies the disadvantages of those who lack wealth, power and influence and aims to preserve existing patterns of inequality. Althusser suggested the dominant ideology was spread through a series of ideological state apparatuses, e.g. the family, the education system and the media.
➠
Patriarchal ideology
is a set of ideas that supports and tries to justify the power of men in a patriarchal society.
➠
Political ideology
provides interpretation of how society should work, and how power should be used by governments to change society through policy-making and political action.
➤
Science –
Beliefs that suggest the scientific method and empirical evidence are the best means of gaining true knowledge about the world. Many scientists do not accept that science is the only means of understanding the world, and their scientific beliefs often exist alongside religious and ideological beliefs.
What is science? (pages 6–8)
Scientific beliefs claim to be true because they rest on scientific methods that formulate hypotheses and explanations that are:
➤
Based on reason and logic.
➤
Capable of being tested against empirical evidence through systematic observation and/or experimentation.
➤
Capable of being proven false (Popper’s principle of falsification). No hypothesis can ever finally be proven true, as there is always the possibility of some future exception. However, a hypothesis can easily be proven false, as the observation of just one exception can disprove a hypothesis.
➤
Abandoned if found to be untrue.
➤
Objective – free from bias and open to scrutiny by other scientists.
➤
Value-free – research and evidence should not be influenced by the beliefs and prejudices of scientists.
➤
Able to establish cause-and-effect relationships rooted in evidence.
➤
Able to provide precise predictions about what will happen in the same circumstances in future.
(Note: there is more on science and the scientific method on pages 147–150 in this book.)
EXAM TIP:
In any question on objectivity and value-freedom in science, you should make reference to Kuhn’s work on paradigms, and the social influences on science on pages 7–8 of the textbook. These suggest scientists are not always as objective, value-free and independent of prejudices and social pressures as scientists might like to claim, and do not always attempt to falsify and question their findings. Science may in these aspects be more like an ideology, justifying the interests of the mainstream scientific community.
What is religion? (pages 8–9)
The functional and inclusivist definition of religion
➤
Includes a wide range of beliefs to which people give a sacred quality.
➤
Does not necessarily include beliefs in a supra-human, supernatural being or power.
➤
Focuses on the function of beliefs in society, and the way in which things that people regard as sacred can contribute to social integration.
➤
Includes both conventional religious beliefs and any beliefs in things to which some people give a sacred quality, e.g. football, the lives of celebrities and royalty.
The substantive and exclusivist definition of religion
This is a narrower definition, adopted by most sociologists. It generally involves:
➤
Beliefs in spiritual, supernatural and/or extra-worldly powers
– e.g. some sort of belief in God or gods.
➤
Theology
– a set of teachings and beliefs.
➤
Practice
– a series of rituals or ceremonies.
➤
Institutions –
some form of organisation of the worshippers/believers.
➤
Consequences –
a set of moral or ethical values that are meant to guide or influence the everyday behaviour of believers.
Science and religion (pages 10–12)
How science differs from religion
Science
Religion
Ideas based on empirical (observable) evidence. Can be tested and falsified through observation and experimentation.
Ideas based on faith – a strong sense of trust and conviction – not on empirical, testable or falsifiable evidence.
Based on objectivity, value-freedom and detachment.
Based on subjective feelings and emotional involvement.
An
open belief system
(Popper) – ideas are open to questioning, testing and falsifying by others, and subject to change as more evidence is collected.
A
closed belief system
– a closed, all-embracing and unchanging set of beliefs, claims and assertions that cannot be questioned, tested, disproved or overturned.
Science and the displacement of religious explanations in modernity
Bruce argues the scientific method challenged religious explanations of the world as society moved towards modernity.
➤
The application of reason, science and the scientific method became the basis for understanding nature and the development and organisation of human societies.
➤
Comte argued these displaced explanations based on things occurring due to the actions of spirits, gods or other abstract entities and forces, like the power of Nature.
➤
Modernity brought with it what Weber called a growing ‘disenchantment with the world’ – rational argument and explanation displaced understandings based on religion, faith, intuition, tradition, magic and superstition.
Evaluative points
Although many people accept most scientific explanations of the world, religious and other supernatural beliefs remain significant features of life in many contemporary societies.
➤
Many millions of people continue to worship and identify themselves with the world’s traditional religions.
➤
Many continue to believe in unproven mysterious spiritual or life forces with the capacity to intervene in life for individual or social benefit, e.g. magic, superstitions, ghosts, demonic possession, and extrasensory perception.
➤
There has been a growth of Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.
Ideology and religion (pages 9–10)
➤
Ideology, like religion, provides a framework of ideas for understanding, interpreting and explaining the world.
➤
Ideologies differ from religions as they are not necessarily based on faith in supernatural beliefs, but on the interests of particular social groups.
➤
Religion may become part of an ideology, as a social group may use religion for its own ends – e.g. Marx saw religion as part of the dominant ideology used to justify ruling-class interests.
Postmodernism and ideology, science and religion (pages 12–15)
➤
Postmodernists regard ideology, science and religion as metanarratives (Lyotard) – broad, all-embracing big theories or belief systems that try to provide comprehensive explanations and knowledge of the world and how societies operate. Such metanarratives are all equally valid.
➤
Science can no longer lay claim to the superiority of its scientific method. Science repeatedly fails to rise to the challenges it faces – e.g. antibiotic-resistant superbugs, global warming and climate change are all products of science. Many scientists have shown themselves to be serving the interests of wealthy corporations and governments, rather than pursuing objective and value-free research.
➤
Bauman suggested there is a ‘crisis of meaning’ in postmodern society, as people reject traditional religious (and ideological) metanarratives they no longer regard as credible.
➤
There’s a fragmentation of beliefs, and people are abandoning once taken-for-granted religious and ideological beliefs and the authority of religious ideas and institutions.
➤
Religion has declined as a source of collective identity based on traditions handed down by the socialisation process.
➤
The beliefs people hold are now purely a matter of personal taste; they ‘pick ’n’ mix’ beliefs – or reject them – in accordance with their personal lifestyle choices and the identities they wish to project.
➤
Religion and ideology are just consumer products, and lifestyle and identity choices, among many others in a consumer-driven society.
➤
People are choosing to create their own do-it-yourself personalised cocktails of beliefs – which may not embrace any particular religious, spiritual or ideological ideas at all.
➤
Postmodern societies have become media-saturated and dominated by global media, which enable people to pick ’n’ mix beliefs from across the world.
TOPIC 2
The relationship between social change and social stability, and religious beliefs, practices and organisations (pages 16–29)
Theories of religion (page 16)
Theories of religion seek to explain religion’s effects for individuals and for society. There are two main approaches:
Religion acting as a conservative force – functionalist, Marxist, interpretivist and feminist approaches:
➠
Building and maintaining social solidarity and social stability.
➠
Protecting traditional values and the existing state of affairs in society, or changing society to restore traditional values and ways of life that may be at risk of disappearing or have already disappeared.
Religion acting as a force for social change – neo-Marxists and Weber.
EXAM TIP:
In any question on religion as a conservative force, good answers will explain that ‘conservative’ can mean different things – e.g. maintaining present arrangements or changing things to go back to a previous state of affairs.
Religion as a conservative force: the functionalist perspective (pages 16–21)
Functionalists like Durkheim, Malinowski and Parsons argue religion maintains the status quo, because the existing social and moral order is regarded as ‘sacred’. Religion acts as a conservative force as it:
➤
Is a source of socialisation and social control – promoting learning of and conformity to traditional social values and forms of behaviour.
➤
Provides a sacred/moral underpinning for social norms and values (Parsons) – e.g. rules about killing and stealing.
➤
