What is political Culture? How does political culture differ from political opinion? Political culture refers to the ideals, values, and the history of norms of society into which we are born. Unlike political culture, political opinion consists of the views held by the population of the state which influence those that are in power. There are three distinct differences between political culture and political opinion which will be discussed throughout this essay.
Particularly striking in this conception is the notion of inventory, which suggests multiple ontologies and the need to collate. The assumptions about the nature of the world in sociology can be classified into two broad orientations, realism and social constructivism. Realism posits the existence of an objective reality independent of human thoughts and beliefs. Contrary to this position, social constructionism is of the view that reality is not independent of human thoughts and beliefs; rather, it is socially constructed (Oxford dictionary of sociology, 552-553, 609). Berger and Luckmann (1967:15-22) argue that social relativity is inherent in reality and knowledge, hence, its collection is defined by social contexts imperative for sociological analysis.
It focuses on how people come together to create society. It focuses on whether actions are good for the equilibrium of society, these are called functions. It also focuses on things that undermine the equilibrium, these are called dysfunctions. For example functionalist Conflict theory do not see society as whole coming together well for one purpose. It focuses on class conflict.
It follows that specific agglomerations of ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ pertain to specific social contexts, and that these relationships will have to be included in an adequate sociological analysis of these contexts.” (p15) Berger and Luckmann believe that the sociology of knowledge should be concerned with a society’s criteria of knowledge and how this is developed. Their postpositivist stance is clearly laid out when they write of how members of society arrange their world view around their ‘here and now’, both originating and maintaining their ideas of reality and knowledge from their own thoughts and actions (and other significants in their life) rather than anything truly objective. The world of everyday life is not only taken for granted as reality by the ordinary members of society in the subjectively meaningful conduct of their lives. It is a world that originates in their thoughts and actions, and is maintained as real by these. (p 33) Berger and Luckmann believe that semiotics or signification is the primary means by which human beings categorise their subjective view of the world.
Symbolism 3. What actually killed the man in the funeral procession? The black plague. 4. How would you describe the tone of the tavern-knave’s report?
Identity, in terms of social science, is defined as the manner in which human beings associate and label themselves as part of a particular social group. People could categorize themselves into groups according to their nationality, ethnicity, religion, social class and gender to name but a few. Symbolic interactionism aims to identify how an individuals’ identity could influence as well as be influenced by their social environment. In this essay, the approaches to construct identity by Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman will briefly be outlined and discussed. It will then be argued that, although there are differences between Mead and Goffmans’ views on the sociology of identity, they are in some way complementary.
How and why the world really works and should work. Some conceptions of ideology see ideology as the structure of assumptions which are a representation of the imaginary relation of individuals to the real condition of existence. Ideology creates us as persons, it gives us a sense of being, an existence if you will. Through Ideology people accept or reject the current way of doing things, they understanding or explain what is natural or is perceived as, and accept their role in society. Ideology brings about socialization or is a partner in crime with, and brings about the process of shaping our cognitive and emotional interpretations in our social world.
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the functionalist approach to society...(33 marks) Functionalism is a macro, consensus theory. They see human behaviour as being influenced by social forces, because it is a macro-scale approach is therefore seen as a strength as it allows functionalist sociologists to observe society, and its institutions, as a whole. Functionalists argue that, individuals are socialised into a shared value which is also known as a value consensus to ensure conformity and social order. However, this functionalists approach is criticised by action theorists, as they argue that individuals create society through their interactions. Marxists may argue that these norms and beliefs are all in interest of the Bourgeoisie and they can prevent or make change by ideological manipulation or force.
What does Paul Feyerabend’s notion of “Epistemological Anarchism” mean? Evaluate this in relation to his critique of Kuhn’s Paradigms. While Emphasizing the subjective side of science, Kuhn claimed that operating within science means existing within the restrictive confines of the dominant paradigm, which attempts to limit particular questions that can be asked, how these are asked, and how their answers are formulated into viable scientific facts that are accepted by fellow scientists. This paradigm, in turn may actually obstruct the progress of science by nature of being untranslatable to other paradigms and impede rational argument. Kuhn states that a scientist’s switch between one paradigm to the next is similar to a “gestalt switch” where neural programming is required rather than argument and persuasion.
Can foreign policy be both “ethical” and Realist? “What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?”1 Foreign policy can be said to be the discourse of international politics – the means by which states present themselves, forge inter-state relationships and attempt to advance their own interests. However even a cursory examination of the topic yields several differing views on it, falling under the umbrella of several theories – Liberal Internationalism, Realism and Marxism, to name a few. Examining the Realist view in particular, raises the question of whether foreign policy is conducted purely for national self-interest, or whether it can have elements of morality and ethics factor into the justifications and motivations involved. Realism is the evolution of a long tradition of political thought, able to be traced as far back as Thucydides and his Melian dialogue; the core of Machiavelli’s famous treatise The Prince; keenly visible in the inter-war period of the 20th Century, and now seemingly ingrained in political thought as the “realistic” approach to politics, focused around the pursuit of power – “Man's control over the minds and actions of other men.”2 In the anarchic international system, with politically identical (that is, sovereign) states all jostling for position, the Realist view is one of self-help and a struggle for survival.