[treblepebble]

(Original post by Kristiipop)
My teachers suggested globalisation or science to come up as they're both new to the course :/

Can anyone help me out with ideology?
I really don't understand what it'd want me to talk about if I had a question on it

I think you just include ideology for every topic? E.g. for science, comparing ideological arguments for religion (functionalists, marxists, feminists, gramsci etc) and then against with popper, kuhn and that. Or for secularisation you'd include the pluralism (dahl).

Other than that there's the straight ideology questions where you evaluate, say Marxists contribution, and you'd just explain Marxist contribution in detail then evaluate it with most other ideologies (SF, feminists, interpretivists, neo-marxists, postmodernists etc)

What sort of things come under globalisation? Consumerism or fundamentalism and stuff like that?

[teaandcoffee]

(Original post by Vijay2010)
x

Thats great thanks! I usually do Intro, all my fors, all my againsts and then the conclusion.. But may try the for,against,for,against method

[acroker1]

(Original post by Kristiipop)
My teachers suggested globalisation or science to come up as they're both new to the course :/

Can anyone help me out with ideology?
I really don't understand what it'd want me to talk about if I had a question on it

A question on ideology would usually involve asking about science and ideologies as belief systems. For ideology I would start by explaining that the term was originally used by Marxists, meaning at set of beliefs used to benefit the capitalists. Then i would go on to explain false consciousness, hegemony etc. Evaluate with Abercrombie and Gramsci. Then Karl Mannheim and Utopian and ideological thought. Then feminist perspective, all ideologies are used to oppress women etc.

Hope this helps, although im not sure if its all right so please do not base all of ideology knowledge on this! I found it quite difficult too, so as I said I may be totally wrong! x

[Vijay2010]

(Original post by teaandcoffee)
Thats great thanks! I usually do Intro, all my fors, all my againsts and then the conclusion.. But may try the for,against,for,against method

Yeah that's one of the other techniques that you can do. As long as the examiner gets the idea that you know arguments for, against and other contributing ideas and theories, then that'll be it

[Kristiipop]

(Original post by treblepebble)
I think you just include ideology for every topic? E.g. for science, comparing ideological arguments for religion (functionalists, marxists, feminists, gramsci etc) and then against with popper, kuhn and that. Or for secularisation you'd include the pluralism (dahl).

Other than that there's the straight ideology questions where you evaluate, say Marxists contribution, and you'd just explain Marxist contribution in detail then evaluate it with most other ideologies (SF, feminists, interpretivists, neo-marxists, postmodernists etc)

What sort of things come under globalisation? Consumerism or fundamentalism and stuff like that?

Ah thank you, so if they ask about ideology, each theory counts as an ideology?

Yeah fundamentalism and things like that. My teacher did say that if it is globalisation, that it could just come in really loosely, for example they could just include the words "in the world" and that would mean you'd have to make sure you're talking about things on a global scale.

[Kristiipop]

(Original post by acroker1)
A question on ideology would usually involve asking about science and ideologies as belief systems. For ideology I would start by explaining that the term was originally used by Marxists, meaning at set of beliefs used to benefit the capitalists. Then i would go on to explain false consciousness, hegemony etc. Evaluate with Abercrombie and Gramsci. Then Karl Mannheim and Utopian and ideological thought. Then feminist perspective, all ideologies are used to oppress women etc.

Hope this helps, although im not sure if its all right so please do not base all of ideology knowledge on this! I found it quite difficult too, so as I said I may be totally wrong! x

Thank you, you actually explained it quite simply!

[treblepebble]

(Original post by Kristiipop)
Ah thank you, so if they ask about ideology, each theory counts as an ideology?

Yeah fundamentalism and things like that. My teacher did say that if it is globalisation, that it could just come in really loosely, for example they could just include the words "in the world" and that would mean you'd have to make sure you're talking about things on a global scale.

Well religion is the ideology, so each one is a theory of ideology. Sorry that I can't help more, working on very little sleep lol.

Ah right, thank you, was worried there might be a whole question on it!

[JaiP]

(Original post by Vijay2010)
Intro - Basically say what you're going to talk about (using social change as an example) - Func, Marx and Fem. say religion stops social change, whereas Bruce, Neo-Marxists and Weber says it promotes it.

Para1- (FOR) Func - stops social change because it would cause society to dissolve blah blah

Para2- (AGAINST) Bruce - American Civil Rights is an example of how religion blah blah

Para3- (FOR) Fem - stops because it legitimises patriarchal power blah blah

And you just keep doing that (a method that works for both 18 and 33 markers, but for the 33 markers you write more detail and after you've done the ping-pong thing, you do a final bit that acts as a mediator (in this case, secularisation - doesnt matter whether or not religion can promote or inhibit social change because religion is declining etc.)

That's how I do it anyway, there are so many other techniques. Hope I helped

thanks for this! ive been stuck on how to structure the 33 marker for sometime! x

[Kristiipop]

(Original post by treblepebble)
Well religion is the ideology, so each one is a theory of ideology. Sorry that I can't help more, working on very little sleep lol.

Ah right, thank you, was worried there might be a whole question on it!

Haha it's okay, you've helped quite a bit actually!

Oh gosh, if there's a whole question on it, I may as well just walk straight out of the exam hall! :P
Though, I don't think i'd mind if it was on fundamentalism, because you could just contrast it a lot with secularisation.

[Vijay2010]

(Original post by teaandcoffee)
Thats great thanks! I usually do Intro, all my fors, all my againsts and then the conclusion.. But may try the for,against,for,against method

(Original post by JaiP)
thanks for this! ive been stuck on how to structure the 33 marker for sometime! x

+rep?

[Sammywest]

I would really hate it if a question about fundamentalism came up. I really wouldn’t know how to answer it. Does anyone know how?

For example, if the question was ‘Examine the causes and consequences of the rise in religious fundamentalism?’

I just don’t know how to make it 2 sided...

[treblepebble]

(Original post by Sammywest)
I would really hate it if a question about fundamentalism came up. I really wouldn’t know how to answer it. Does anyone know how?

For example, if the question was ‘Examine the causes and consequences of the rise in religious fundamentalism?’

I just don’t know how to make it 2 sided...

How many marks would that be?

[Sammywest]

(Original post by treblepebble)
How many marks would that be?

I have the example question here. It is 18 marks.

But then again... I was wondering if there would be a 33-marker on fundamentalism.

[treblepebble]

(Original post by Sammywest)
I have the example question here. It is 18 marks.

But then again... I was wondering if there would be a 33-marker on fundamentalism.

Deleted because it was very wrong.
Everyone should refer to Noodlezzz :P

[acroker1]

(Original post by Sammywest)
I would really hate it if a question about fundamentalism came up. I really wouldn’t know how to answer it. Does anyone know how?

For example, if the question was ‘Examine the causes and consequences of the rise in religious fundamentalism?’

I just don’t know how to make it 2 sided...

Oh my gosh I think id faint if this came up...i didnt even know that this was a possible question for one of the essays! Do you think you would write about it as a response to post modernism and globalisation, Heelas crumbling cage etc...Castelles resistant identity....and Bruce's idea of fundamentalism being reactions to different things in the Western world and the third world? I think thats all i know about fundamentalism, along with examples. But im really not sure how to structure that in to an essay that would answer that question!

[Sammywest]

(Original post by treblepebble)
Hmmm... I'm not sure how to answer the 18 mark, do you think it needs another side? It could just be listing the causes and consequences..

But for a 33 marker I'd use secularisation. E.g.

Fundamentalism:
- Because of postmodernity, globalisation etc
- Examples - Iran (opposing the Shah), or New Christian Right
= keeping religion alive and not a secular society

Opposing
Secularisation:
- Church attendance decline
- Falling number of marriages, baptisms, clergy
- Rationalisation (science)
- Pluralism
- Desacrilisation
- Disengagement
just all the secularisation stuff really.

Could also include other factors that keep society from being secular other than fundamentalism - e.g. rise in NRMs, NAMs, women's high attendance rates etc.



EDIT: I typed this out quickly and didn't really read it through so don't take my word for it!

Thanks a lot for the help. Great points for evidence and reasons for secularisation. I still can't think of many points for the argument that fundamentalism has risen. I mean, it would be alright, but my teachers said the 18-markers are 2 sided.

(Original post by acroker1)
Oh my gosh I think id faint if this came up...i didnt even know that this was a possible question for one of the essays! Do you think you would write about it as a response to post modernism and globalisation, Heelas crumbling cage etc...Castelles resistant identity....and Bruce's idea of fundamentalism being reactions to different things in the Western world and the third world? I think thats all i know about fundamentalism, along with examples. But im really not sure how to structure that in to an essay that would answer that question!

I hate it too. My best guess would be in a response to globalisation, yes, but then there is the problem of making it two sided and turning it into a debate. For fundamentalism, I only really know, like you said, Bruce, as well as Holden (who used Jehovah's witness as an example of those who are uncertain about the world, and religion provides morals)

[acroker1]

(Original post by Sammywest)
I would really hate it if a question about fundamentalism came up. I really wouldn’t know how to answer it. Does anyone know how?

For example, if the question was ‘Examine the causes and consequences of the rise in religious fundamentalism?’

I just don’t know how to make it 2 sided...

For the two sided thing or evaluation I would use what the other person (sorry cant remember name!) advised - secularisation. I would say that although there has been a rise in fundamentalism, it hasnt had that much affect on wider society which generally indicates secularisation. For example, the New Christian Right have failed to "take America back to God". I would also use Heelas's other side to the argument, his 'iron cage' analysis, meaning most people feel like they want more choice and diversity...the opposite to fundamentalism?? not sure if thats right im just trying to think about what id write! Also, i think even though there are a lot of marks available for evaluation, the evaluation can be spread throughout the whole essay and doesnt have to physically take up half of the essay if you know what I mean? As long as it is evaluated its ok...i think!

[Noodlzzz]

Causes of fundamentalism:

Globalisation
- In a Marxist sense it is the ruling class pushing capitalism on the rest of the world
- It forced hegemony through fraud from one ruling country to a 3rd world one
- It is a smokescreen for imperialism (militant power)
- It's pushed out religion / made them all similar (internal secularisation)
- This has therefore created fundamentalism to revolt against this and is used by those who fear globalisation
Secularisation
- Religion is a means of identity, those who use it as such feel lost in a secular world
- It has caused the breakdown of communities, which some people strive for
- Yet again, those who fear it use fundamentalism as a means of identity and increasing religion in a secular world
Modernity
- Secularisation, increased geographical mobility and war have all created sense of anomie
- Anomie leads to those with a crisis of meaning to seek identity in fundementalist religions

Consequences:

Secularisation
- Fundementalism is often more about politics than religion
- It has caused more people to see the dark side of religion and turn away from it
Power & stratification
- Further justified the ruling class to dominate 3rd world countries with fundamentalism ideals
- Created poverty in some areas and therefore marginalised many people

[JaiP]

Hindu ultanationalism is a good critique of how although there is religous fundamentalism, to a global extent some cultures have adapted to the rise in modernity, i.e India via globalisation, embracing modern advances as part of their culture and lifestyle in conjunction with their Hindu faith.

[treblepebble]

(Original post by Noodlzzz)
Causes of fundamentalism:

Globalisation
- In a Marxist sense it is the ruling class pushing capitalism on the rest of the world
- It forced hegemony through fraud from one ruling country to a 3rd world one
- It is a smokescreen for imperialism (militant power)
- It's pushed out religion / made them all similar (internal secularisation)
- This has therefore created fundamentalism to revolt against this and is used by those who fear globalisation
Secularisation
- Religion is a means of identity, those who use it as such feel lost in a secular world
- It has caused the breakdown of communities, which some people strive for
- Yet again, those who fear it use fundamentalism as a means of identity and increasing religion in a secular world
Modernity
- Secularisation, increased geographical mobility and war have all created sense of anomie
- Anomie leads to those with a crisis of meaning to seek identity in fundementalist religions

Consequences:

Secularisation
- Fundementalism is often more about politics than religion
- It has caused more people to see the dark side of religion and turn away from it
Power & stratification
- Further justified the ruling class to dominate 3rd world countries with fundamentalism ideals
- Created poverty in some areas and therefore marginalised many people

Thank you, my answer was so unbelievably wrong :| haha so glad the exam is in the afternoon so I have more cramming time.