AQA A2 Sociology Unit 4 20th June

aww thankssss.
would you be able to give me a brief outline of sociology and social policy, value freedom debate and interactionism?....i don't know them..

this is what happens to students who have teachers with poor standards of teaching ¬_¬ goshhh!!

well I cant help you much with social policy stuff but I wrote something on interactionism earlier on.

Here it is :
Its the same as Social action theory if that rings a closer bell for you.

There using an interactional approach rather than structural. This looks to explain how society is created by providing theories on the interactions between individuals. (This is the bottom up approach and is opposite to the structural approach) Its just that the world is comprised of symbols that people use to communicate. Society is constructed from peoples perceptions of themselves and the use of symbols to interact with one another.
Key ideas would be Goffmans Dramaticular theory which suggests society is much like a play where people learn their roles in relation to each other and then put on the play known as society.
Perhaps Cooleys idea of the looking glass self - People build who they are in relation to how people percieve them.
Beckers labelling theory is an of shoot of social action theory too.

Main criticisms of the ideas are that they fail to really adress power inequalities (although Becker makes some reference). There theory is not really a complete theory on society, simply pieces of theory relating to interactions of people ( which is really there aim).


Im also leaving Feminism out because it came up in the last theory dominant question.
I really hope social policy doesn't come up because I wont be able to even get out of the starting blocks with it haha.

I would hope for Interpretivist methods , Marxism , Functionalism or Social action theory myself.

Obviously i'm going to revise it and stuff..I just really hate it. It's so crapp.

i havent done sociology and social policy....if it was specifically linked to crime id do the realist approaches like left realism has policies aimed at tackling structual factors of inequality and right realism is about the individual and reducing the opportunity for crime and increasing the risk. but if it came up as a theory and method question id struggle to not link it to crime :/

interactionism i havent done seperately from crime either
but its just like social constructions and relative concepts in terms of peoples interpretations and the meanings they attach to things
thats all i really know, sorry!

and value freedom is about whether research can be objective and neutral
the view that it can is mostly concerned with positivists
so waffle on about objective methods and trying to be like a science
then challenge that with kaplan who says science doesnt actually use objective methods
values are inevitable as soon as a researcher picks one topic over another
marxists say values reflected in research are likely to be those of the organisation funding it - eg rowntree trust and poverty
but that isnt always true - eg leicester uni funded by government to study hooliganism in 80s but research was critical of gov policies
then theres the imposition problem of methods, social desirability (taking on the values of the researcher to look good) and going native in participant observation makes you lose objectivity and take on values of group being studied
webers really important in VF debate - he says values are relative and inevitably linked to the society the researcher works in
gomm says VF depends on who controls the values - so marxists would say values in research represent capitalism
gouldner is also a main person - says VF is a myth and researchers cant escape their domain assumptions

then youd talk about how most sociologists now think we shouldnt be value free
becker - need to show values of underdog
marxists - advocate sociology which is political
new right - give right wing explanations with right wing values
so research should be value laden


i think most questions on VF would focus on how it cant be and shouldnt be not really how it can
i think...
haha

WHAT IN THE NAME OF FRIGGIN WHATEVERRR ARE YOU TELLING ME =|
OMGGGOD. SO WHEN WE ARE WRITING ABOUT THEORY AND METHODS...WE CAN NOT LINK IT TO CRIME? DO WE LOSE MARKS? OMG.
METHODS IN CONTEXT WE CAN THOUGH RIGHT?
OMG. OMG.

so.........

Theory and methods = do not link it to crime!!!!??

WHAT IN THE NAME OF FRIGGIN WHATEVERRR ARE YOU TELLING ME =|
OMGGGOD. SO WHEN WE ARE WRITING ABOUT THEORY AND METHODS...WE CAN NOT LINK IT TO CRIME? DO WE LOSE MARKS? OMG.
METHODS IN CONTEXT WE CAN THOUGH RIGHT?
OMG. OMG.

so.........

Theory and methods = do not link it to crime!!!!??

I know someone said Globalisation may be the 12 marker but it was in 2010 Jan so I doubt it. The only topics which have never come up are suicide, marxism, realism and labelling. Also, some parts of state crime/green crime and punishment/control

Green crime came up in context as well as suicide. Marxism comes under conflict theories.

WHAT IN THE NAME OF FRIGGIN WHATEVERRR ARE YOU TELLING ME =|
OMGGGOD. SO WHEN WE ARE WRITING ABOUT THEORY AND METHODS...WE CAN NOT LINK IT TO CRIME? DO WE LOSE MARKS? OMG.
METHODS IN CONTEXT WE CAN THOUGH RIGHT?
OMG. OMG.

so.........

Theory and methods = do not link it to crime!!!!??

No you don't lose marks. Application to any area in sociology including crime is a deffo good thing to do!

no no no no no!!
do not panic haha!
you can link it to crime...but because its synoptic you can link it to anything
what i mean is id be able to write the essay on only crime but if i had to say the main points of the approach without linking it to crime id get confused
if you know what i mean...

oh and methods in context - DO LINK IT TO CRIME!!! whatever you do LINK IT!
haha...your given a specific topic of crime in the question though eg 'using covert observation to study edgework' or whatever, so youd know to link it

hahahaha. Okay. I'm calm now. thanks a loot
I think I'll go and start some revision now..I aint touched it "/
Suicide and Realist theories are what I'll focus on today I think..what else might come up?

Functionalists are prety much blind to the concepts as a whole. It is one of the main criticisms of the functionalist explanation. They don't really explain ruling class crimes with their ' it sets boundaries and makes cohesion ' type explanation.
Functionalist Merton does explain some state crimes with his strain theory. Even the state has goals it wants to achieve and when these cant be achieved legally (ie a strain between goals and means ) they may turn to crime to achieve the goals.
An example would be if the state fails keep society functioning legally it might employ police brutality to control the members whilst war crimes may result in the aquisition of a resource which they could not obtain.
NOTE : Merton doesn't give this specific example, its just how it could be applied to state crime and so it could be used to explain state crime.

Marxists much more vocal on it. Claim that the state is allowed to commit crime in capitalism and that this is accepted by the people through hegemonic domination ( media representations , socialization , education ect ). and that the state will commit crime as long as this serves ruling class interests.
Remember Engels : the state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the bourgoeisie ( or however you spell it ).

Pierce claims that the ability for the state to legitimatly commit crime is evident in its activity in third world countries ie war crimes ( wont give specific examples for fear of politcal debate haha). Pierce also notes this about corporate crime looking at how third world people are exploited to produce corporate brands.
With green crime as I said its largelly a corporate crime thing so Marxists would argue that power inequalities allow green crime to be committed by corporations.

They might also note the medias scapegoating of working class crimes whilst their is no reference to environmental crimes in the media and when there is , the media often note it as an ' accident ' ie the BP oil spill. This results in people not regarding green crime as actual crime.

I hope that helps you, and its no problem.