Internal Assignment No.

B.A-I YEAR
Paper Code: B.A –SO-001
Paper Title: SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT
Student name
Roll no -------------------------
Ans 1

The modern family came into being with the surge of optimistic thinking that began in the
Renaissance and continued through the Industrial Revolution. Human progress, universality of
the newly discovered laws of science, and the consistency and regularity of the laws governing
the universe were underlying assumptions of this era. Widespread agreement remains today that
the modern nuclear family, with its two parents and two or three children, is the ideal end result
of progress in the evolution of family forms (Elkind 1992).

Evidence for progress

The modern family's vital statistics are far better than those of the institutional family, and of all
previous family forms. Quantum changes in income, mortality rates, life expectancy, nutritional
status, educational opportunities, and other indicators of the quality of life occur in response to
industrialization, modern health care, education, and other aspects of socio-economic
development. It is widely agreed that families are better off with these changes than without
them.

The positive effects of change on the modern family mirror negative changes discussed below.
Modernization has commercialized many aspects of life that depended previously on much less
commercialized exchanges within the traditional extended family and community. On the
positive side, expanded communications networks create uniform global value standards in areas
such as health care, nutrition, education, and basic human rights (as expressed, for example, in
UNICEF's The State of the World's Children, 1992, which asserts that progress is ongoing).
These value standards require technologies far exceeding those available to the traditional
extended family.

Positive effects of changing child-rearing practices on child development

The ways in which parents train and stimulate their children also change systematically with the
modernization of the family. These changes produce children who are more cognitively
advanced by modern performance standards and are better nourished, and hence better prepared
to participate in the modern workforce. Werner (1979) documented very similar differences in
parenting styles between modernizing and traditional parents in the United States
(Bronfenbrenner 1963; Becker and Krug 1964); Mexico (Holtzman, Diaz-Guerrerro, and Swartz
1975); Lebanon (Prothro 1962); and Indonesia (Danzinger 1960a, 1960b; Thomas and
Surachmad 1962); Nigeria (Lloyd 1966, 1970; LeVine, Klein, and Fries 1967); and Ghana
(Grindal 1972). We found evidence of the same differences in the Nigerian and Indonesian data
analysed in chapters 6 and 7; these differences were associated with better child growth and
cognitive test performance (Zeitlin and Satoto 1990; Aina et al. 1992). We summarize these
transformations as follows:

1. A change in parental discipline away from immediate physical punishment to tolerance of

slower obedience, but expectation of greater understanding of the reasons for rules.
2. Acceptance of the child's physical dependency up to an older age.

3. More affection and intimacy, a more personal relationship with the father, and more recreation
shared by parents and children.

4. Increased verbal responsiveness to the child and use of explanation rather than physical
demonstration in teaching.

The first parents to alter their behaviours tend to be members of the élite and middle classes,
who have the earliest contact with modernization. The same changes later occur as secular trends
among less-privileged families. Our research demonstrated that the modernizing changes found
in the élite families in Ibadan in the 1960s now also are seen among low-income families in
Lagos State. The association of these factors with better child growth and cognitive scores tends
to confirm the view that parents adopt these styles of interaction because they are adaptive, in
that they do improve school achievement and the ability of children to compete in the modern
world.

How various aspects of modernization and differences in social class produce changes in child-
rearing, and how these changes alter cognitive and other outcomes, are ongoing topics of
investigation (Langman 1987). LeVine et al. (1991) documented that increased maternal
schooling in Mexico is correlated with increased verbal responsiveness to infants and increased
infant care by adults rather than siblings. They explain that

Formal education everywhere ... entails the presence of an adult whose role is entirely
instructional, talking to children ... For girls in rural areas of countries where mass schooling is
still a relatively recent innovation, this model of social interaction between an adult and
children stands in contrast to their previous experience, and in time it reshapes their skills and
preferences in social communication ... Identifying with the role of pupil, they continue to seek
useful knowledge wherever they can find it; identifying with the role of teacher, they are verbally
responsive to their children during infancy and after ... Their children grow up better prepared
for school, equipped with verbal skills and with a new set of expectations concerning family life,
fertility, parent-child relations, and health care. Thus, women's attendance at school initiates a
cumulative process over the generations that contributes to the demographic transition. (LeVine
et al. 1991, 492)

Parents need and welcome guidance and assistance in child development. Chapter 6 provides
evidence for the effectiveness of early childhood education programmes that assist them in this
task. Numerous evaluations of these programmes demonstrate that children's cognitive test
scores and school success improve in response to their parent's verbal responsiveness and efforts
to provide other forms of developmental stimulation.

Ans 2(1)

In order to discuss the nature of a civil society, it is first necessary to discuss the
nature and elements of society in general, including government. A separate paper
elaborates the Elements of Government while this paper elaborates the elements of
society, exclusive of those elements particular to government, although there is
clearly some overlap. A third paper will build on these two papers and elaborate the
elements of civil society, which will only briefly be mentioned in this paper.
The goal here is not to delve too deeply into all aspects of society, but to define a basic
but sufficiently rich framework model for society, specifically modern, western or
American-style society, that will facilitate a discussion of civil society.

Baseline reference
The real goal here is not to offer an engaging and captivating narrative, a good read,
but to provide a baseline reference on what a typical modern, western-style society
looks like, with the real goal of defining simply the starting point for discussion of
activities that occur in the context of society, as well as the starting point for
discussion of how to improve society, to make it better and closer to a more ideal
society.

This paper is simply attempting to catalog current best practice for a modern,
western-style society, so that when someone says “society”, we can all know what that
is referring to.

Also see the paper on Elements of Government for the narrower context of
governance, which is indeed a large element of society, but still only one element
among many within the larger context of society.

Definition
Paraphrasing the dictionary definition, society is a relatively large group of people
living together in a relatively ordered community.

The intent of this paper is to consider society as encompassing the population of a

single country. Society does tend to spill across national borders, with cultural and
ethnic influences between countries, but at present there does still appear to be a
relatively strong sense of the social order of a country as being relatively distinct from
even adjacent and relatively similar countries. Maybe some day that will change, but
for the indefinite future it seems to be the operative mode for how a society organizes
itself.

The model of society used in this paper treats individual, local communities as
relatively small units of the larger society of the full country, which is in contrast to
the dictionary definition which would treat the entire country as a single community.

Ans 2(2)

1 Family The most important agency of social control is the family (section 1.2) for although the norms
and values we learn in our family as a child can be modified later, all our later social learning will
have to force its way through the mesh of this early conditioning. That which is not in accord with
our existing value system is likely to be rejected. The importance of the family as an agent of social
control has been referred to by many sociologists. Anne Campbell (Girl Delinquents, 1981) found
 that delinquent children often 'reported a feeling of being rejected by either or both parents.
Supervision over the child's activities and discipline was lax and erratic, and parent and child spent
little time in recreational activities with one another.' The family may therefore fail to socialise the
child in a socially acceptable way, by neglect, or by socialising the child as a member of a delinquent
subculture. Usually however the family will begin the process of acceptable social learning. The
family will be the agency in which gender roles are learned by providing toys and clothes appropriate
to aggressive masculine or submissive feminine roles if those are the roles appropriate to the culture.
Parents will provide role models so that sons and daughters will learn by observation what is
appropriate behaviour for them as male or female, which may, of course, include drunkenness and
violence. In the family, basic rules such as those relating to ownership of property will be learned as
the child is allocated specific personal belongings. Children will learn of their parents' disapproval of
certain other people in the community and certain kinds of behaviour; their own behaviour will be
sanctioned by rewards and punishments.

2 Education When children move into the school situation they have to learn to relate to a more formal,
hierarchical structure than in the family (sections 6.3 and 8.2). They begin to learn to conform to a
situation similar to that of their future world of work. Rules must often be obeyed without
explanation; work is often apparently meaningless and therefore alienating; individuals must be
given signs of respect appropriate to their status. Sanctions tend to be more formal. Indiscipline or
slackness is discouraged by lines, detentions and the withholding of privileges; 'good' behaviour and
hard work is rewarded by exam success and office, such as that of prefect. However, while the
education service encourages most children to adhere to the norms and values of acceptable -and
often middle class orientated -culture, some children may be encouraged into deviance by lack of
success within the education system.

Internal Assignment No. 2

B.A-I YEAR
Paper Code: B.A –SO-001
Paper Title: SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT
Students name
Roll no

Ans 1

Sociology is a discipline in social sciences concerned with the human society and human social activities. It is
one of the youngest social sciences. Auguste Comte, a French social thinker, is traditionally known as the
‘Father of Sociology’ as he coined the term ‘Sociology’ in 1839.

Meaning of Sociology:

The term sociology is composed of two words; Latin word ‘Socius’ means companion or associate and Greek
word ‘Logos’ means study. Thus etymological meaning of sociology is, “The science of society”. However,
almost all sociologists differ in their views regarding the exact definition of the term. They generally define
sociology as study of:

Social action- Max WeberInteractions- Gillin and GillinSocial relationships- MacIver and Page, A.W. GreenSocial
groups- M. JohnsonSocial institutions- DurkheimSociety- Giddings, ward

Definitions of Sociology by Famous Sociologists:

Auguste Comte: Comte defines Sociology as the science of social phenomena “subject to natural and
invariable laws, the discovery of which is the object of investigation”.Kingsley Davis: “Sociology is a general
science of society”.Morris Ginsberg: “In the broadest sense, Sociology is the study of human interactions and
inter-relations, their conditions and consequences”.Anthony Giddens: “Sociology is the study of human social
life, groups and societies”.

Nature of Sociology:

In nature of sociology we investigate, what type of subject Sociology is? Is sociology a science, or an art or
what? To answer this question Robert Bierstedt enlisted the following characteristics of sociology in his book
“The Social Order”:

Sociology is an independent science. Sociology like any other discipline have its own area of study and not
fully dependent on other discipline.Sociology is a social science not a physical science. Social sciences focus
on various aspect of human society while physical sciences deal with natural phenomena. Thus Sociology is a
social science as it deals with man and his social activities.Sociology is a categorical and not a normative
discipline. Sociology is value-free. It is only interested in ‘what is’ and not ‘what should be’ or ‘ought to
be’.Sociology is pure science and not an applied science. As a Pure science it is only interested in acquisition
of knowledge, it has nothing to do with application of that knowledge. Like Physics is a pure science while
engineering is its application.Sociology is relatively an abstract science and not a concrete science. It studies
the society in an abstract (Theoretical not physical) way. Like, Sociology is not interested in particular families
but in family as a social institution that exists in all societies.Sociology is a generalising science and not a
particularising science. Sociology is not interested in particular events rather it studies events in a general way.
Example: History study French Revolution but Sociology will be interested in revolutions in general.Sociology
is a general science and not a special social science. Like Economy or Political Science, Sociology does not
focus on only one aspect of human activity. As it has to deal with society it includes all aspects of human life in
a general way.Sociology is both a rational and an empirical science. It studies the social phenomena in
scientific way. It is based on reason (logic), observation and experimentation.

Sociology IsSociology Is NotSocial SciencePhysical ScienceCategorical ScienceNormative DisciplinePure

ScienceApplied ScienceGeneral ScienceSpecial Social ScienceAbstract ScienceConcrete ScienceGeneralising
ScienceParticularising ScienceIndependent Science–Both Rational and empirical Discipline–

Thus we can say that sociology is a science of general nature and falls in the category of social sciences.

Scope of Sociology:

Scope means the subject matter or the areas of study or the boundaries of a subject. What we have to study in
a particular subject is known as its scope. Every science has its own field of inquiry. It becomes difficult to
study a science systematically unless its boundary or scope is determined precisely. Sociology as a social
science has its own scope or boundaries. But there is no one opinion about the scope of Sociology. However,
there are two main schools of thought regarding the scope of Sociology: (1) The Specialistic or Formalistic
school and (2) the Synthetic school. There is a good deal of controversy about the scope of Sociology .

Ans 2

Historical materialism, also known as the materialist conception of history, is a methodology used by
some communist and Marxist historiographers that focuses on human societies and their development
through history, arguing that history is the result of material conditions rather than ideas. This was first
articulated by Karl Marx (1818–1883) as the "materialist conception of history."[1] It is principally a theory
of history which asserts that the material conditions of a society's mode of production or in Marxist terms,
the union of a society's productive forces and relations of production, fundamentally determine society's
organization and development. Historical materialism is an example of Marx and Engel's scientific
socialism, attempting to show that socialism and communism are scientific necessities rather than
philosophical ideals.[2]
Historical materialism is materialist as it does not believe that history has been driven by
individual's consciousness or ideals, but rather ascribes to the philosophical monism that matter is the
fundamental substance of nature and henceforth the driving force in all of world history; this drove Marx and
other historical materialists to abandon ideas such as rights (e.g. "right to life, liberty, and property"
as liberalism professed).[3] In contrast, idealists believe that human consciousness creates reality rather
than the materialist conception that material reality creates human consciousness. This put Marx in direct
conflict with groups like the liberals who believed that reality was governed by some set of ideals,[4] when he
stated in The German Ideology: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established,
an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes
the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence
Origins
Karl Marx never used the words "historical materialism" to describe his theory of history; the term first
appears in Friedrich Engels' 1880 work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, to which Marx wrote an
introduction for the French edition.[8] By 1892, Engels indicated that he accepted the broader usage of the
term "historical materialism," writing in an introduction to an English edition of Socialism: Utopian and
Scientifi
This book defends what we call "historical materialism", and the word materialism grates upon the ears of
the immense majority of British readers. [...] I hope even British respectability will not be overshocked if I
use, in English as well as in so many other languages, the term "historical materialism", to designate that
view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important
historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and
exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes
against one another.
Marx's initial interest in materialism is evident in his doctoral thesis which compared the
philosophical atomism of Democritus with the materialist philosophy of Epicurus[10][11] as well as his close
reading of Adam Smith and other writers in classical political economy.

A caricature drawn by Engels of Max Stirner, whose 1844 work The Unique and its Propertyprompted Marx
and Engels to theorize a scientific approach to the study of history which they first laid out in The German
Ideology (1845) along with a lengthy rebuttal of Stirner's own critique of socialism
Marx and Engels first state and detail their materialist conception of history within the pages of The German
Ideology, written in 1845. The book, which structural Marxists such as Louis Althusser regard as Marx's first
'mature' work, is a lengthy polemic against Marx and Engels' fellow Young Hegelians and
contemporaries Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner. Stirner's 1844 work The Unique and its
Property had a particularly strong impact[13] on the worldview of Marx and Engels: Stirner's blistering critique
of morality and whole-hearted embrace of egoism prompted the pair to formulate a conception
of socialism along lines of self-interest rather than simple humanism alone, grounding that conception in the
scientific study of history.
Perhaps Marx's clearest formulation of historical materialism resides in the preface to his 1859 book A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines
their consciousness

Continued development
In a foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), three years
after Marx's death, Engels claimed confidently that "the Marxist world outlook has found representatives far
beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages of the world."[16] Indeed, in the
years after Marx and Engels' deaths, "historical materialism" was identified as a distinct philosophical doctrine
and was subsequently elaborated upon and systematized by Orthodox Marxist and Marxist–Leninist thinkers
such as Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Georgi Plekhanov and Nikolai Bukharin. This occurred despite the fact
that many of Marx's earlier works on historical materialism, including The German Ideology, remained
unpublished until the 1930s.
In the early years of the 20th century, historical materialism was often treated by socialist writers as
interchangeable with dialectical materialism, a formulation never used by Marx or Engels.[17] According to many
Marxists influenced by Soviet Marxism, historical materialism is a specifically sociological method, while
dialectical materialism refers to the more general, abstract philosophy underlying Marx and Engels' body of work.
This view is based on Joseph Stalin's pamphlet Dialectical and Historical Materialism, as well as textbooks
issued by the Institute of Marxism–Leninism of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union.[18]
The substantivist ethnographic approach of economic anthropologist and sociologist Karl Polanyi bears
similarities to historical materialism. Polanyi distinguishes between the formaldefinition of economics as the logic
of rational choice between limited resources and a substantive definition of economics as the way humans make
their living from their natural and social environment.[19] In The Great Transformation (1944), Polanyi asserts that
both the formal and substantive definitions of economics hold true under capitalism, but that the formal definition
falls short when analyzing the economic behavior of pre-industrial societies, whose behavior was more often
governed by redistribution and reciprocity.[20] While Polanyi was influenced by Marx, he rejected the primacy
of economic determinism in shaping the course of history, arguing that rather than being a realm unto itself, an
economy is embedded within its contemporary social institutions, such as the state in the case of the market
economy.[21]
Perhaps the most notable recent exploration of historical materialism is G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of
History: A Defence,[22] which inaugurated the school of Analytical Marxism. Cohen advances a sophisticated
technological-determinist interpretation of Marx "in which history is, fundamentally, the growth of human
productive power, and forms of society rise and fall according as they enable or impede that growth."[23]
Several scholars have argued that historical materialism ought to be revised in the light of modern scientific
knowledge.[who?] Jürgen Habermas believes historical materialism "needs revision in many respects", especially
because it has ignored the significance of communicative action.[24]
Göran Therborn has argued that the method of historical materialism should be applied to historical materialism
as intellectual tradition, and to the history of Marxism itself.[25]
In the early 1980s, Paul Hirst and Barry Hindess elaborated a structural Marxist interpretation of historical
materialism.[26]
Regulation theory, especially in the work of Michel Aglietta draws extensively on historical materialism.[27]
Spiral dynamics shows similarities to historical materialism