Lab and field experiments, questionnaires, interviews, observations, official statistics, documents, and content analysis. And then we'll be moving on to debates. Is sociology science? Should sociologists influence social policy? And what role should values play in sociological research? And the final section will be theory. So that's functionalism, feminism, postmodernism, social action theory, and Marxism. Okay. So first up, why do we do research in sociology? We do research to collect data, to learn about society, to develop our knowledge, to establish cause and effect relationships, to advise on social policy, to change the law, to make money, to become famous, and hold the powerful to account. And about the fame and money part, you have to think people are making careers out of sociology. So like imagine coining like a phrase like I don't know, for example, France's women are the takers of Like imagine how iconic that would be to say, "Yep guys, that is my quote." But also, it will be in our exams. So that's why we're doing research. And when doing research, we have to think about what influences our choice of topic. So this could be a theoretical position or the values of society. So as you're in as an individual, are you more inclined towards certain political ideologies or theories? So do you prefer new right ideas or Marxist ideas for example? Um, are you wanting to add in prior research and data? So, you want to further support or disprove, which is falsify previous findings. And also, we're looking at values of society. So, what topics or opinions are popular in contemporary society, which best means current and having the general population be fond of your topic and increase the researcher's success. So if I was to think of an example of that, I think it was was it last month, the month before on Netflix, adolescence came out and it's brought a lot of attention in mainstream media especially towards like incel culture and things like that. So if you were a sociologist want to do research like you'd be jumping on that bandwagon because you think oh like that topic is like popping off basically in society and people would be like oh yeah that's interesting because of like current debates going on in the world and then also funding. So sociologists might be scouted by companies to research certain topics. So say you might not have never thought of researching topic but someone goes hang on here's some cash research this for me. and go yeah do you know what I'll do that why not and when we do research we have different types of data so first we have primary data and this refers to data that has been gathered by the research themselves for example they may have conducted a questionnaire or a series of interviews or they might have carried out an observation or experiment then we also have secondary data which refers to information or data that has been collected by someone else other than the researcher who is using it so for example Example, these could be from the government, statistics, existing research papers and documents. And within that, we also have qualitative data. So it refers to non-numerical descriptive information often in the form of text used to understand social phenomenon, experiences, and perspectives. And quantitative data refers to numerical or quantifiable information. This includes data that can be counted, measured, or expressed as numbers or percentages. It's often used to identify patterns, trends, and relationships within a population. Looking into theoretical perspectives, we have structuralists who take a top- down macro approach. So macro basically means grand scale large. Uh so examples of these are functionalists, Marxists, and liberal feminists. Social theorists in sociology focus on how societal structures and institutions shape individual behavior and social processes and therefore they prefer quantitative and positivist research. The other side of the coin we have social action theorists which take a bottom up micro approach that's like small uh who so we have verb moffman neoarxists difference or intersectional feminists and they emphasize the role of individual actors and their actions in shaping society and they prefer qualitative interpretivist research methods. So adding on to that we have positivism which is an approach that views social phenomenon as objective facts that can be studied scientifically like the natural science is using quantitative methods and empirical evidence to discover general laws and patterns. And a big thing about them is that positivists love to use research to generate social facts. So how the natural sciences produce facts, they're basically doing it the same way but making it sociology. Interpretivism however on the other side again is a methodological approach that emphasizes understanding the subjective meanings and interpretations that individuals attach their actions and experiences. And they their big thing is for stern which basically means empathetic understanding. And that's just the big German word for it. When choosing a method in sociology, we can take a pet approach. So the P for that stands for practical. And we can break that down into time, cost, and access. So time looks at different methods may take up different amounts of time. Some being longer than others. So for example, online questionnaires versus facetoface interviews. Online questionnaires are much quicker. Cost. If the funding body is paying for the research, they may have strict ideas on what they want you to collect. If research is self-funded, it could get expensive and also access. How you intending to gain access to your desired participants or data. It may be easier to study one group using a certain method over another. For example, observing younger children rather than making them answer a questionnaire. Okay, so the E stands for ethical which can be broken down into harm, consent, and deceit. So harm refers to how researchers should not physically or mentally harm their participants. Participants should remain anonymous and researchers also need to adjust their methods to protect vulnerable groups from harm. So this could be children, the elderly or the disabled. And consent participants should be given the right to refuse to be involved. So that's the right to withdraw. And this can't happen in undercover observations. So which is known as covert but we'll get into that later. And deceit. Participants should be aware of the intentions of the experiment and study and know what their data will be used for and why. And finally the T stands for theoretical. So within this we have validity which is the accuracy of a research method in measuring what it intends to measure. The higher the validity the closer the data is to the truth. Reliability. A reliable method is one which can be repeated and the same answers can be found. So for example, in a lab experiment, you have high reliability due to controlling of environmental variables. Representativeness. A representative method is one which allows its findings to be applied beyond the sample used. So for example, questionnaires have a higher representativeness as they've been handed out to the masses and a divi diverse sample and they can reach a lot of people especially through the internet. Methodological perspectives look at how sociologists may choose their method based on their outlook on society. So they might prefer positivist quantitative data over qualitivative data and the opposite be for interpretivists opinions. When performing research we also need to choose a sample. A sample is a small group of people who are representative of a large group used when the target population is too big to research everyone. And why do we sample? Sociologists sample to effect efficiently study large populations, save time as well as resources, and still gather reliable information. It's often impractical or impossible to study everyone in a target population. So, a smaller representative sample is used. This allows researchers to generalize findings from the sample to a larger group. And we also have five types of sampling which is random, systematic, stratified, quarter or opportunity. For the sake of shortening the video, I'm going to read the definitions and you can pause strengths and weaknesses on this section. So we have random sampling which ensures every individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected. Systematic sampling involves every nth person from a list. So say for example every third person would be taken and they'll use their data. Stratified random sampling. The population is divided into subgroups based on characteristics like age or gender and random samples taken from each. Then we also have quarter sampling which is researchers select participants based on predetermined characteristics but the selection process is nonrandom. And finally, opportunity sampling involves selecting individuals who are most conveniently available, such as students in a classroom. And looking at our theoretical approaches, positivist sociologists prefer random and systematic sampling for generalizability, while interpretivists may favor quarter or opportunity sampling for deeper insights. Okay. So, if you don't do this little fun acronym in your college or place of education, whatever, you might be confused of why pervert is written across your screen in big letters. Well, actually, we can use this to help us in research methods as a way of remembering all the different things we need to talk about. So P stands for practical, Ethics, R being reliability, V validity, E examples, R representiveness, and T for theoretical. Moving on swiftly. We're really cooking on gas sucking on diesel here. Uh we have primary research methods and we're looking at experiments first. So lab experiments are conducted in an artificial setting using highly controlled variables and examples of these are the Bobo doll experiment and the Stanford University present experiment. Here's an analysis. I'll let you pause the video and do that to save time. And then we have a field experiment. Field experiments take place in a natural real world setting. So examples of this being Rosenhan's sane in insane places study and also Rosenal and Jacobson's pig million in the classroom which is linking to the self-fulfilling prophecy and then again we have the analysis. I'll let you pause there. Next we have questionnaires. What is a questionnaire? So a questionnaire is a written or electronic self-completion survey method which can be given to the participants to be filed out anonymously. I forgot to speak there. Close questions are questions which have set responses which the participant has to choose from. Each answer can be analyzed by the researcher helping to generate social facts. So thinking back to what I said earlier, can you think of who would like that? And then open questions are questions which do not have set responses. The participants are free to respond to these how they wish and can offer their thoughts and feelings helping to generate empathetic understanding which is the stone. I'm thinking back again who did I say like the stone as in course interpret this and again we have our analysis for closed questions. pause now and our analysis for open questions. I feel bad that I'm not explaining the analysis, but like I feel in research methods when you kind of get the vibe of it, it's a bit repetitive, so I just be going over and over again, but you know, you can pause. Hit that pause button. So, interviews. What is an interview? I'm going crazy already. Interviews are used to collect data through direct verbal interaction between a researcher and one or more participants. They're a way for sociologists to gain indepth insights into people's thoughts, experiences and perspectives on social phenomenon. So we have different types of interviews, one being a structured/formal interview. The interviewer is given structured instructions on how to ask the questions. The interview is conducted in a standardized way which means the same questions word for word, the same order etc. We also have unstructured interviews which also known as informal. They act like a guarding conversation. The interviewer has complete freedom to change the questions, wording, order etc. As well as asking follow-up questions to gain more in-depth details. Semi-structured interviews are each interviews has a certain set of questions but the interviewer can also probe for more information and additional questions can be asked where the interviewer thinks it's relevant. So if they have a point and they go oh actually that's good that we follow up on that they can get more details which they wouldn't have had before. And finally, group interviews usually consist of around a dozen participants and they focus and they can also have focus groups or a form of group interview which the researcher asks the group to discuss certain topics and record their views. This is the analysis for the structured interviews and this is the analysis for the unstructured interviews. Next type of primary research method we have observation. What is observation? Observation is a research method where researchers watch and record the actions and interactions of individuals or groups in a social setting. Observation allows sociologists to gain insight into social behavior and dynamics in a natural context. Types of observations. So first we have participant observation which involves the sociologist immersing themselves in the lifestyle of the group they want to study. Researchers want to understand what is happening from the point of view of those involved and to understand the meaning that they give to the situation. On the other side, we have nonparticipant observation which involves a researcher sitting on an observing activity. They are a detached observer meaning they don't have a direct influence and they focus on particular types of behavior activities through observation schedule. They might say right we want to focus on this type of behavior and that's what they look out for exclusively overt the researcher joins in the activities of a group but some or all of the groups know that the researcher sociologist is actively observing them and then covert is the researcher inserts themselves into a group and conceals the fact that they are doing research they pretend to be an authentic member of the group in a way I use to remember This is O which is open for overt. So people are aware that they're being watched and C is for closed which is covert where people don't know they're being watched. So again we have the analysis for participant and the analysis for nonparticipant. Moving on to secondary research methods. Now we've got official statistics. So what are official statistics? So this refers to quantitative data collected and published by governments or other official agencies such as the office for national statistics which is abbreviated to the ONS in the UK. These statistics are a major source of secondary data for sociologists. They are often used to track social trends, assess policy impacts and identify areas for further research. Official statistics can be hard or soft. Hard statistics refer to quantitative data collected by governments or official bodies such as birth and death rates and educational attainment data. So these are legal required to be documented. Therefore, it's hard to you know make them untrustworthy because they have to be documented. Whereas soft statistics are less reliable. Official statistics that might not accurately represent real world so real world social phenomenon. Their validity may be questioned due to the way the statistics are labeled or interpreted. For example, in employment rates, crime statistics and data on domestic violence with the actual scale and extent of the problem might be underestimated. And this is where you can argue that official stat statistics are a social construct. And we have to look at how they're gathered. And that links into like triangulation and methological plurism methological pluralism. Sorry. So we can validify how truthful the data is. You know the drill by now. Analysis of official statistics. Next we have documents. What are documents? Documents refer to any written text such as personal diaries, newspapers, medical reports, etc. However, they can also include wider media products such as paintings, photos, maps, magazines, advertisement, radios, blah blah blah. So basically, it's anything that tells us something about the society we live in. Sociologists will often use media extracts or items such as adverts or television programs to examine and analyze the values, priorities or concerns of social, sorry, at any point in time. And then we have different types of documents. So we have public documents which refer to written or visual records created by organizations such as governments, companies, schools, charities and they are often made available to the public. Personal documents refer to private writings or records created by individuals for their own use such as diaries, letters or emails. Historical documents refer to personal documents like diaries and letters, but also public records like government reports and census data which allow sociologists to study the evolution of social structures and cultural norms over time. And when analyzing a document, Scott says that we should look for credibility. Is the document believable? Is the document accurate? Representativeness. Is the evidence in a document typical? Can all people write a document? And you also have to think about that. Authenticity. Are there any missing pages? Is a document an original or is it a copy? And also the meaning. What do the documents actually mean? And you have to remember different sociologists may interpretate things differently. Documents can be polymic meaning that their content can be interpreted in different ways. And again here is the analysis. Pause now. And finally the last part of research methods is content analysis. So what is content analysis? Content analysis in sociology is a research method used to analyze the content of various forms of communication like media, documents and cultural artifacts. So for example, the use of certain words or phrases in news reports or the role played by fictional characters and you can investigate how that relates to stereotypes. So you have three different types of content analysis. The first one being formal which is content is counted and classified grouped by tally. And an example of this is for Eisenhower discovering that all the princess movies from the 1989 to 1999 Disney's Renaissance era was actually male dominated despite being princess films. You can read the criticisms and the analysis as well. um thematic content analysis examines the message behind portrayal of a particular topic. So an example of this is Walbe's study of rape coverage in newspapers. And finally we have textual content analysis which is detailed analysis of small pieces of text. So, GUMG, which stands for Glasgow University Media Group, looked at the words used to describe managers and strikers in the industrial disputes. So, how do we carry out content analysis? So, first of all, we identify a sociological problem. We operationalize the concept or problem. We choose the study, the source. We count the frequency in each category and we compare findings with other sources and slash all the official statistics on such. So an example of this would be gender and ethnicity representations in school. So how are you going to operationalize this? Well, we're going to divide it up into male versus female and white versus BIM, black, Asian, minor, and ethnic for those who don't know. And how we're going to use that, we're going to look at the school prospectus. So the pictures that school make when they like promote themselves basically. Uh we're going to count the frequency in each category. So how many girls, how many boys, how many white students, how many black, Asian, minority, ethnic students. And then we're going to compare findings with gender and ethnicity statistics on the school enrollment. So how representative are those fours? So, are they underrepresented or could it be an act of tokenism where they're over represented? And to top it all off, we've got the strengths and weaknesses of content analysis. So, I'll let you pause that. Moving on to topic two. Woohoo. We're not doing bad for timing at all. Sociological debates. I'm going to start with the big dog of the debates which is is sociology a science which can get quite heated. So what is a science? And according to the science council science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic method methodology based on evidence. There are five components of the science. Those being empirical originating in or based on observation or experience. Testable scientific experiments can be repeated and retested and hence scientific knowledge is seen as more reliable than less testable forms. Theoretical science seeks casual relationships and doesn't rely simply on describing but seeks to explain. Communulative. It builds on previous knowledge and moves forward our understanding of the world. And finally, objective personal feelings, prejudices, etc. have no place in science. It has to be unbiased. So, breaking this down, we're going to start off with argument number one, positivism. They believe sociology can and should be considered a science. So through verificationism we can develop a theory that explain helps to explain a social phenomenon or thing. We can then verify this through future observations. The patterns we find can be explained using social facts. So for example, educational failure is caused by material deprivation. By analyzing quantitative data, positivists seek to discover the laws of cause and effect that determine behavior. For those who don't know, verificationism is an approach that suggests a statement is meaningful only if it can be empirically verified. So sociology is patented and these can be observed. And then you go on to patterns can be used to create social facts. Told you positive love social facts. Then you go on to social facts can be verified using inductive logic. and then you can collect data and then form a conclusion. So an example of sociology science would be Durkheim's use of official statistics to reveal patterns in suicide which is his famous you know the study of suicide. So we have this little paradigm thingy going on here. So you have fatalistic suicide, altruistic suicide, anomic suicide and egoistic suicide. So here we have integration too little too much integration meaning group membership and too much too little regulation with regulation meaning laws made by authority. So Durkheim basically looked at the facts and the stats and came to this conclusion. On the other side of the coin you already know who it's going to be. Of course it's interpretivists and they argue that sociology cannot and shouldn't be considered a science. Sociology studies people who have consciousness. People don't respond to stimuli. We attach different meanings to the same stimulus. Research cannot be objective. We need to immerse ourselves in the world of those researched to establish empathetic understanding which again is the stay. So the process is people are conscious beings which is the ethics of it all. Sociology is about meanings which are unobservable. which have qualitative methods and causality is impossible to determine. There are too many extraneous variables which are external influences. So you can't isolate one things. to kind of say, okay, it's someone's gender we're going to look at cuz what about their peer influences, the primary socialization, you know, subcultures, things like that, their age, all that she and criticizing Durkheim study of suicide is Atkinson's perspective, uh, arguing that the only thing we can study about suicide is the way in which the living makes sense of it. Members of society including the coroner, family members etc. have a taken forranted set of assumption that we use to make sense of situations. The role of a sociologist is discovered this taken for granted knowledge to improve our overall understanding of events. So when Durkheim carried out his research in the 19 not 19 sorrys the 1880s historically Catholics were less likely to be declared as having committed suicide as this was would have condemned them to hell. Therefore, stats are a social construct meaning the coroner might have changed it you know like come on we don't want to put stigma on our family just change it bit of bribery going on there you know so here interpretivists have studied and researched the creation of stats increasing ability cuz actually we can't trust stats so our next argument is falsification sociology could be considered a science arguing that science can only thrive in an open liberal society where philosophical hedge money which means dominance can be challenged. Poa argued that too much sociology is unscientific in that it can't be disproved such as a Marxist idea in revolution simply because it hasn't happened yet. The best theories are falsifiable even when tested is true. So for example, we can test and I'm sure you will have done this in your science lessons at school. That boiling point of water is 100° C. So that's an example of natural sciences. So soldier has more untested ideas than natural scientists. That is only because it's had less time to do so. So science has been around since like BC like you know thousands of years traditional science whereas sociology has only been around since like the 18th 19th century and the process of this so science must be falsifiable which is a swanology we'll get on to that in a moment which is deductive reasoning and prove a hypothesis wrong looking at the swanology it took me quite a while to get my head around this but once you get it you get All swans are white. Arriving at a conclusion just because an observation isn't always correct. We can never prove a theory to be true simply by producing observations to confirm it. So, for example, it' be simple to verify the idea that all swans are white by finding more swans. So, if you go to a pond and go, "Yeah, you know, I see eight white swans, therefore all swans are white." But then you go back to the pond the next day and you find one black swan and that can destroy the whole theory proving that a theory wrong will get us close to the truth. So you can go but actually I said a black swan. So one black swan disproves the whole theory. Argument number four we have paradigms which is con I believe how that's how it's said. Sociology could be considered a science. Co argues that normal science operate within a paradigm an accepted framework of concepts and procedures i.e a dominant mode of scientific thought unlike perspectives in sociology where this is competition between various theories the scientific paradigm is rarely questioned. So for example the acceptance of the periodic table and the elements that make up our universe is viewed as fact. You know, scientists aren't going around going, "Hm, actually, I disagree with you." And when they do find a new element, which they have in the past, it all becomes agreed. You know, they all go, "Yeah, okay." Sociology doesn't have a shared paradigm, however, and therefore by it definition is not a sign. It's not scientific, but come believed it could be in given time because again, sociology is only a new concept really. And this links to structuration theory by giddens. And so in sociology, conflict and consensus compete with each other and they never agree. And that was the same as structural theory and social action theory. However, he argues that actually structural theory and social action theory are starting to come together a bit. So therefore, with time, sociology could, you know, have a shared paradigm. Number five, we have realism with Kat and Yuri. Sociology could be considered science, yet it depends on how you define a science. There is a similar similarity between sociology and certain types of natural science. The distinguish between open and closed systems. Closed systems is where variables can be controlled and precise measurements can be taken which is you know your typical lab experiments of physics, chemistry, biology etc. Whereas open systems are where not all variables can be controlled. So for example, seismatologists cannot accur accurately predict whether where and when an earthquake is going to happen, but they're still seen as scientific and sociology can fit into this uh realist view of science as it seeks to undercover underlying structures and processes. We can't see social class, but we can see the effects of it. So if we're looking at a closed system, sociology is not a science. But if you look at it open, sociology could be a science. Okay, so if you've watched my last video, you'll know how much I adore social policy, education policy, anything of that sort. Therefore, this is my favorite, the three debates. That being, should sociology influence social policy? So, what actually is social and policy? Social policy refers to governmental actions and programs designed to address societal needs and improve well-being. So social policy helps to cure a social ill. That's how I remember it. Giddens argued there are four practical benefits of studying sociology. So the first one being understanding social situations. Factual knowledge can help develop theories. For example, in the 1960s, politicians believe poverty had been eradicated due to the welfare state. Yet in 1985, it was found that 11 million UK residents were living in poverty. This led to new ideas such as relative poverty which is what people feel they should have in relation to something relating resulting in implementation of minimum wage. Poverty is also about social exclusion leading to shuart centers etc. The next being awareness of cultural differences to break down prejudice and discrimination. So, for example, disability, if we're looking at that, they're seven times more likely to be unemployed with 50% of households with a disabled adult male in poverty, which can lead to things like the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act and the 1999 Disability Rights Commission Act. If we're looking at race, you can look at studies looked at how positive contributions of ethnic minority ethnic groups and breakdown of stereotypes which leads to the racial inequalities act of 1976 and the 2000s. Then third we have the assessment of policies. Government requires evidence that policies are effective to justify funding. Sociology sociological research helps to provide this evidence. So for example, York University did a cost benefit of the NHS leading to the government introducing the National Institution of Clinical Excellence in 1999. And finally, the fourth one being an increase in self-nowledge. Self-nowledge allows people to reflect on images of themselves and then campaign for policies which challenge stereotypical images of themselves. So for example, sociological opinion polls showed that public support for equal rights for gay people and that later led to the encouragement of gay the gay community to have the encourage to have the encourage to demand equal rights to have the courage. Sorry, I actually can't read. So what would functionalists say about social policy? Well, functionists view social policy as a mechanism for maintaining social ordinance ability. They argue that policies are designed to support key institutions such as the family, education, and the economy, ensuring that society functions smoothly. Durkheim believed that social policy should promote social solidarity and integration. He argued that the institutions like education and the welfare system help individuals feel connected to a society. Parsons saw policies as necessary for maintaining value, consensus, and social equilibrium. He argued that policies reinforce shared norms and values preventing social instability. So if we're looking at examples, we have education. So compulsory schooling ensures that children are socialized into shared norms and values promoting meritocracy. The welfare state so poly policies like the NHS pensions unemployment benefits the support of individuals preventing dysfunction in society. crime. You have rehabilitation programs aimed to reintegrate offenders, maintaining social cohesion and preventing enemy, which is basically a French word for chaos when there's a lack of law and things like that. Housing policies, government funded housing, ensures stability for families, preventing homelessness and social disorder. And functionalists argue that these policies benefit society as a whole, ensuring that institutions function effectively and individuals contribute positively to the social systems. However, it can be argued that it's overly optimistic, ignores power dynamics, lacks consideration of diversity, and fails to tackle the root causes. We need to change the basic structure of society in order to solve these specific problems. Next we have the social democratic perspective on social policy. The social democratic perspective sees social policy as a tool for reducing inequality and promoting social justice. Social democrats argue that the state should intervene to provide welfare and support disadvantaged groups ensuring equal opportunity for all. So key ideas include redistribution of wealth, progressive taxation and welfare benefits to help reduce economic inequality, universal welfare services like health care and education should be accessible to all regardless of a person's income and state intervention. Governments should actively address social problems rather than leave them to market forces. So the application of this is the welfare states. We have like the NHS, free education, unemployment benefit, minimum wage laws, ensuring fair fair pay for workers helps reduce poverty and exploitation and social housing is government funded housing projects provide affordable homes for lowincome families. Yet a criticism of this sorry is that Marxists would argue that social policies do not eliminate capitalism. They only soften its inequalities. New right thinkers claim excessive welfare creates dependency discouraging self-reliance and postmodernists suggest that the one-sizefits all policies approach fails to address the diverse needs of individuals. Postmodernists love to say that there is no universal truth. Okay, so next up we have Marxism and social policy. Marxists argue that social policies primarily serve the interests of the ruling class and help maintain capitalism rather than addressing inequality. They believe that the state exists to protect the interests of the bgeoisi and not the working class. Social policies act as a form of ideological control making inequality seem natural or inevitable. Welfare policies prevent revolution by offering minimal support to the poor rather than addressing structural inequalities. Some marks saw social policies as a tool used by the ruden class to maintain their dominance. Aluza argued that the state use is the ideological state apparatuses. So basically the different institutions in society to reinforce captist values and social policy is part of that. Grampsky however suggested that the ruling cast maintains power through hedgeimonyy shaping public beliefs to accept capitalism. So that basically just means dominance hedge money. Uh examples of Marxist critiques of social policy. So welfare benefit is seen to pretend prevent workingass rebellion rather than generally reducing poverty. Education policies reinforce class inequalities by favoring middle-class students through cultural capital which was discussed in the last video. Crime policies focus on punishing workingclass offenders while ignoring corporate crime or white collar crimes in comparison to blue collar crimes. Uh housing policies they often fil to provide adequate support for the poor maintaining class divisions. Marxists argued that these policies do not challenge capitalism but instead reinforce existing inequalities. Social policy is a means of preventing revolution giving capitalism a caring face which is coined by Pierce. Basically like capitalist the illus capitalism is the illusion. They use social policy to basically cover it up and say no look we're helping but really they're not doing our just to look good. uh weaknesses of the Marxist view is that it's overly deterministic and assumes all policies serve the ruling class and it ignores positive impacts such as policies like NHS or for education which have actually improved working-class people's lives. So for example, you are able to regain social mobility in education and some people have demonstrated that and it also fails to consider agency and it suggests that individuals are passive victims of capitalism rather than active agents of change. Next we have feminism and social policy. So, feminists argue that social policy often reinforces patriarchy, maintaining male dominance and female subordination. They believe that the state plays a role in perpetrating gender inequalities through policies that favor traditional family structures. Some policies reinforce gender roles and feminists advocate for policies that promote gender equality such as equal pay legislation which is 1970 and anti-discrimination laws which is the 1975 sex discrimination act. Liberal feminists uh say that they support policies as they promote gradual change such as the equal pay act and again anti-discrimination laws. Radical feminists argue that the state is inherently patriarchal and that policies often fail to challenge male dominance. And then Marxist feminists believe that capitalism and patriarchy work together with social policies reinforcing both economic and gender inequalities. So examples of this being marriage and family policies. Tax benefit for married couples reinforce traditional gender roles. Child care policies. Limited state funded child care forces women to domestic roles. Domestic violence laws. Historically laws fail to protect women adequately. But improvements have been made, but it's still not perfect. And equal pay legislation. It attempts to reduce the gender pay gap. but enforces but enforcement remains inconsistent. Feminists argue that these policies often fail to fully address gender inequality requiring further reform. Uh criticisms of the feminist view is that it overlooks improvements. So some social policies have actually helped and it ignores intersectionality or difference feminism which is basically it doesn't account for race, class and sexuality and things like that and how women vary. And it assumes that all women experience oppression equally and again women are not homogeneous group. Women are different and you can't just do a oneizefits-all policy. You have to accommodate all the different types. And finally we have our last perspective which is the new right and social policy. So a new right perspective sees social policy as a tool to promote individual responsibility, free market principles and traditional family values. They argue that the state should play a minimum role in welfare provision as excessive intervention leads to dependency and this is also known as a nanny state. Sometimes um market forces should drive social services ensuring efficiency and competition. Traditional family structures like the nuclear family should be encouraged as to provide stability and social order. Charles Murray criticized the welfare state for creating a dependency culture arguing that benefits to encourage self-sufficiency that this is under migrate government uh policies under migr reflected new right ideas promoting privatization reduce welfare spending and individual responsibility. So examples of these are privatization of public services, encouraging private companies to run health care, education and transport, settling some of your 1988 educational reform act for education. Link back to the last video. Uh welfare cuts, reducing benefit to encourage people to seek employment, tougher crime policies, stricter sentencing and policing to maintain social order. Again, education like we just said, uh, weaknesses of this is that it ignores structural inequalities and assumes that everyone has an equal opportunity and it is harsh on vulnerable groups and welfare cuts can disproportionately affect the poor and it overlooks social diversity and assumes traditional family structures are universally beneficial. But as we can see, they're moving trends away from the nuclear family and things like that. society can still function just as well in different ways. And for our final sociological debate, we have what role should values play in sociological research. So there are four main arguments of this debate. The first one being value freedom. The notion that social research should not be influenced by the researchers beliefs and ideas and they should remain objective. It is particularly associated with the positivist approach in sociology. Then we have value relevance. The view that we cannot avoid having our values influenced in some way. For example, our choice of topic of research. But these must not influence the research conducted. Value laden. This perspective suggests that we cannot escape our values and we shouldn't try to neither. It also value committed. So soldiers must pick and be committed to a side. They should help the underdogs in society. So starting off with sociology should be value free. Value freedom occurs when sociologists ensure that their own personal views and ideologies do not affect the way their research is conducted or the research outcomes. Valuef free sociology is possible and desirable that is for positivists. So Durkheim and Compt argue that the aim of sociology is to discover the truth about how society works and uncover the laws that govern society. With this sociologists can say with scientific certainty what is best for society and social problems. Mark saw himself as a scientist and believe that he had discovered the truth about the future society that being you know we should overthrow capitalism and live in a communist society in order for it to be the best. Um however Marx took his own values again of communism as the ideal solution for society. Therefore he never actually remained valuef free. So the benefits of value free sociology is that it helps policy makers make informed unbiased decisions. It prevents manipulation of research findings for ideological purposes and maintains credibility and legitimate legitimacy sorry of sociological studies. Uh criticisms of value free sociology from interpreterists being that humans attach means to actions making complete objectivity impossible and verb would argue that we recognize personal values influence topic selection that argued researchers should remain neutral in analysis. Some sociologists argue that research should address social injustices rather than strive for neutrality. Real world implications. Sociologists advocating for social change such as feminists or Marxists often reject value free research and also can neutrality lead to overlooking the importance of social inequalities. So if we're just choosing to dismiss them then is that really the best you know cuz after all these inequalities do exist in society and arguably they need to be addressed. So next we have sociology should be value relevant. So soldiers influenced by researchers values, interests and societal concerns. Research cannot be truly objective and so solders bring their own perspectives to their work. Verba saw an essential role for values in sociology. He saw them as relevant at certain points in the research process such as when choosing what to research, when interpretating data, when deciding the use the findings of the research are put to. However, values must be kept out of the actual process of gathering data remaining as subjective and as unbiased as possible. Researchers investigate social problems, for example, inequality, discrimination based on ethical concerns. Sociological theories like Marxists and feminists directly challenge oppression and promote social change. Values shape the framing of questions and interpretations of findings. However, criticisms of this is that positivists would argue that it undermines sociology's credibility as an objective science because it's having our opinions leak into it. Personal and political biases may distort findings leading to subjective conclusions. and can sociology remain ethical while advocating for social change because again they can't be touchy topics within that and real world implications. Many researchers aim to highlight social injustices rather than remain neutral ethical considerations. Should sociology challenge oppressive structures or just simply observe them because again it's like how far involved are you going to get? Next we have sociology is value laden. Sociology is deeply influenced by values, beliefs and perspectives of the researcher. No research is truly neutral. Values affect topic choice, data collection and interpretation. Golden criticized the idea of objectivity arguing that all sociology is politically and ideologically driven saying that it is neither possible or desirable to keep values out of research. This helps to uncover system systemic inequalities such as racism, sexism, and class exploitation. It influences policym based on ethical and political stances allowing for research that chances dominant ideologies such as feminist and Marxist approaches. Uh it can lead to biased research driven by ideological agendas. It risks undermining soldiers credibility as an objective discipline and science again and findings may be dismissed as too politically motivated rather than academically rigorous. So if your opinions are involved too much that can disprove the validity of it and it also can lead to soldiers to hire. So that's what we uh linking back to earlier when we said about how social soldiers can be commissioned to pick certain topics and they can be socially constructed in certain ways to look more beneficial to another part. So then it's not remaining objective. So again positivists would argue that it weakens sociology's argument of being a societ a science. Marxists would say that's um neutral sociology reinforces existing power structures and real world implications. Many contemporary sociologists engage in activism alongside their research and the line between sociology and political advocacy continues to be debated. So again, it's how far can you involve how far can you involve your opinion without it becoming a hindrance and actually you know making your data not as valid as it would have been if you had left your opinions out of it. And finally we have soldiers should be value committed. So soldier should not be neutral. Instead it should be actively used to support social justice and change. Research should align with ethical, political and ideological commitments. So Becca states that all of sociology is influenced by values and this drives sociologist to take sides. Becca further argues that sociology has a responsibility to support the underdogs and advocate the marginalized groups in society. This is achieved by identifying with them using qualitative methods such as participant observation which can reveal the meanings of these marginalized groups. Uh so the application of those helps expose and challenge systematic inequalities. It directly influences policy making and activism and sociology becomes a force for change rather than passive observation. Again positives would argue that sociology should be neutral focusing on empirical evidence rather advocacy. And there's a risk of ideological influence. Findings may be shaped by personal beliefs rather than objective analysis. Ethical concerns. Should research actively promote social change or simply inform the public? Real world implic implications. Many modern sociologists use their work to challenge injustice and drive reform. The boundary between sociology and activism remains a sub a subject of debate. So again, it's just the idea of okay, so we need to include our opinions because it's helpful. can help drive social change, but yet what point is it that we're becoming biased? And finally, what feels like forever, we are on sociological theories, our final topic. And just to give like a little top tip, when answering a sociological theory question, try to take a synoptic approach with it. So basically what that means is tie in all your areas into your question. So say I study education, family, media, and crime for example. Yours might be different. That's what I do. So try tie all the different areas into your answer just and it'll make it look good. Okay. So we're going to start off with functionalism and their ideas and the first one being society as a system which refers to the organic analogy. So Parsons argued that society operates like a biological system with institutions such as family, education and government functioning like organs in a body. Each part has a role in maintaining social order and stability ensuring society runs smoothly which overall maintains value consensus. So applying this for example with the idea of work. So we start off with education and has played a role by teaching us the requires and specialized skills to succeed in the workplace and for members to efficiently fulfill their role at work. The health care system such as NHS ensures that we are fit and healthy so that we can actually attend work and then from working members of society are then able to contribute to the economy. So it's basically the idea of all institutions help each other to help society run as a whole. So without the NHS you wouldn't have workers when without education without workers and without workers you won't have the economy and all that they all just tie together. Merin criticizes Parson's organic analogy by challenging three key assumptions of functionalism indispensability functional unity and universal functionalism. We'll talk about this more later on. Then the next functionalist idea is value consensus and social order. Value consensus. Functionalists like Durkheim and Parsons argue that society functions smoothly when individuals share common values, norms, and beliefs. This shared agreement helps people cooperate and work together towards collective goals, preventing chaos and conflict. And institutions like family, education, and religion play a crucial role in instilling these values. So that's a secondary socialization, helping you to learn the norms of society. basically and social order refers to functionalists believe that social order is maintained through socialization and institutions that regulate behavior. Like I've just said, Durkheim introduced the idea of a collective consciousness where shared norms and values create unity. Laws, traditions, and morals, codes reinforce this order, ensuring individuals conform to societal expectations. This theory can be applied to real world examples such as how schools teach shared values like respect and discipline, helping individuals integrate into society. There also links to bridge theory of how school prepares them for the workplace and things like that. Laws also reflect value consensus by defining acceptable behavior, ensuring order and cohesion. And a key thing to remember is that value consensus is essentially the glue that holds society together. Next we have socialization and social control. For Parsons the system has two mechanisms for ensuring that individuals conform to shared norms and meet the systems needs. Socialization. Through the socialization process, individuals internalize the systems norm and values so that society becomes part of their personality structure. Different agencies of socialization such as the family, education system, media, and religion all contribute to this process. Social control. Positive sanctions reward conformity while negative sanctions punish deviance. This refers to mechanisms that regulate behavior such as laws, education, and family expectations help to maintain order and prevent deviance. The behavior of everyone will be relatively predictable and stable, allowing cooperation between them. This integration into shared normative order makes orderly social life possible. So then again, functionalism is just basically just everyone works together to help society function in a non- chaotic way. And then we have Parsons again cuz as we know he is such a yapper. Parson's identified four basic needs which can be abbreviated to agill or Gil I think is the other variant of it. By carrying out their respective functions, the four subsystems ensure that all society's needs are met and social stability is maintained. So this is broken down into four parts. So the A stands for adaptation. The social system meets its members material needs through the economic subsystem. Society must adapt to its environment by securing resources and distributing them effectively. So an example of this is functional fit theory for how society used to be an agricultural based society but then as people moved towards cities and the industrial revolution happened society also moved with it. It's like your family structures your work they all adapted to fit this new way of life. The G stands for goal attainment. So society needs to set goals and allocate resources to achieve them. This is the function of the political subsystem through institutions such as parliament. So an example of this is pupil premium policy in education. The goal was to improve academic outcome for students from lowinccome backgrounds and the resources overall was the extra funding allocated to help achieve this goal. And then the I stands for integration. This is where different parts of the system must be integrated together to pursue shared goals. This is the role of the subsystem of religion, education and the media. So for example, you have vertical integration in the film industry. This is if you study media. I know some people might not. Uh so basically vertical integration is having as much control over media production and distribution allowing companies to promote values. For example, Disney, they make films. They have their own streaming platforms. They have theme parks and things like that. So they all have control of where their media is going. Uh and the L finally stands for latency which refers to the process that maintain society over time. The kinship subsystem also known as a family provides pattern maintenance. Uh socializing individuals intervals and tension management. So an example of that would be the warm bath theory. The family is a place to let off steam after the stresses of work. So instead of releasing their anger onto the bosses, they can release at home. And you'll study that in the family topic, which I'll be doing a video on too. And next up, we have how do societies change? So move from simple to complex structures. For example, in traditional society, a single institution such as the family would perform many functions. As society develops, the family/kinship system loses functions to factories, political parties, schools, churches, etc. Parsons calls this structural differentiation, a gradual process in which separate functional specialized institutions develop, each meeting a different need. Parsons also sees gradual change occurring through dynamic equilibrium. That is as change occurs in one institution, it produces compensatory compensatory changes in another part. For example, the change from the extended family when it was the agricultural revolution and things like that to the nuclear family for the industrial revolution. So here there's a little farm and there's the city. So within functionalism itself we have other other functionalists criticizing functionalism and that being merin. So he criticizes it in three top ways which I briefly mentioned earlier. The first one being indispensability. So Parsons assumed that every institution in society is necessary in its current form. Merin argued however that alternative structures could serve the same function. For example, while Parson saw the nuclear family as essential for primary socialization, Merton pointed out that single parent families or extended families could fulfill this role just as well. The second criticism being functional unity. Parsons believed that all parts of society are interconnected and work harmoniously. Merton disagreed, however, arguing that some institutions operate independently and that society wouldn't necessarily collapse if one changed or disappeared. And the third being universal functionalism. Parsons assumed that all aspects of society serve a positive function. Men countered this by highlighting that some institutions can be dysfunctional for certain groups aligning more with conflict perspectives. And then that leads us on to external criticisms of functionalism and nicely onto conflict theorists ideas. So conflict theorists see functionalism as focusing on harmon harmony and stability rather than conflict and change. Marxists argue that society is based on exploitation and dividing into classes with conflicting interests and unequal power. Feminists argue that society is based on the exploitation of women through patriarchy. Stability is simply the result of the dominant class being able to prevent change by using force or ideological manipulation. Shared values are merely a smoke screen considering the interests of the dominant class or gender. So it's basically the shared values are used as a cover up to show the truth of the actual real inequalities going on in society. Social action theorists would argue that functionalism has an oversocialized view of society in suggesting that individuals are just puppets. They believe that society is shaped by an individual's actions even if these actions help to conform to expected patterns of behavior. So basically functionalism is like very deterministic where social actions theorists are actually like you can act against that everything's not just a system in place. You can overcome the system and find your own ways. And then postmodernists argue that functionalism, functionalists, sorry, see society as oddly unstable and that this fails to account for the diverse and instability in postmodern society. They say that functionalism is outdated because postmodern society is too fragmented to be explained by an overall system or meta narrative. And postmodernists linking back to earlier believe that there is no universal truth. Okay, so moving on to our next theory, we're going to go on to feminism. And there are four basic features of feminism and basically how it all works as a big cycle. So it starts off with there are inequalities between men and women based on power and status. And these inequalities create conflict between men and women which then leads to gender roles and inequalities are generally socially constructed due to this. And then finally that results in the patriarchy which is a system of social structures and practices which men dominate women and yeah oppress and exploit women sorry and that's just basically one big cycle of how the patriarchy is able to be maintained through socialization all institutions helping to reinforce this idea of course that is from a feminist perspective and that's what they believe. So then we have the six structures of patriarchy which is identified by WBY. These aren't in a particular order. I just like structured them this way cuz I don't know. I just thought it look nice. So you have the state. The government is run by men. So policies and laws tend to favor men's interests. Domestic labor. Women still complete most of the domestic labor. So that's like your housework, cleaning, cooking, looking after children, etc. Uh violence. Men can use their physicality to intimidate women because biologically men are typically stronger than women. Uh paid work, women earn less than men and they are overwhelmingly in low paid and part-time work and the part-time work mostly you can link that to how women have caring responsibilities for the children where men are more likely to be the bread winner. But actually when you look at the family the trends are moving away from that but that's for another video. uh sexuality, the difference in how men and women's sexuality is perceived. And finally, culture, the portrayal of women in culture and the media is often in a sexual way or in a way that reinforces women's law status. Okay, so in sociology, we have four core feminist perspectives with one of them being liberal feminism. Liberal feminists believe that as humans, women should have the same rights and freedoms as men. They believe in reformism that equality can be achieved by gradual reforms and changes to laws, policies and education. So for example in the family more women are pursuing careers. There is a more equal split in households, tasks and child care but still more to be done but it's shown that there's a change in trend social policy. So there's now shared maternity and paternity leave. maternity leave is still quite bad and most men only take the two standard weeks. And then you also have things like nursery vouchers to help women get to back to work and make things more equal. In education, the expectations have changed, but more work there's still more work to be done for that. But an example of this is women in science and engineering. So we have, you know, women in STEM, Justin Wise. Remember that from the education video. In the workplace, we challenge institutional sexism with things like the 1975 sex discrimination act and also challenge the glass ceiling and law. We have the equal pay act of 1970, the anti-discrimination laws again 1975 sex discrimination act and better care for victims of sexual crimes. So an example of changes in the law for that would be in 1991 marital rape was finally criminalized and I still find that shocking how recent that is. Moving on to strengths or weaknesses. So the strengths are that it shows that gender inequality and discrimination are real and can be overcome without violence. It shows that gender differences are socially constructed and it has had important influences on social policy. However, liberal feminism can be criticized for being overly optimistic and it deals with the symptoms of oppression and not the causes. So basically the implementation of laws might help things but it doesn't cure it. So therefore it also ignores the need for revolutionary action that we actually need to change the system altogether and arguably it's too peacemeal. So yes, we do have changes under the law which are helpful, but the argument is is that actually taking too long. So next we have radical feminism. Radical feminists argue that the personal is political. They believe that women's main enemy are men and that all men benefit from patriarchy and patriarchy is a universal concept which is derived from women's ability to bear children. So basically give birth and carry children. So actions lobbying simply for legal change is unlikely to bring about equality and three main actions are required to create a new culture of female independence free from the patriarchy. Some radical feminists advocate for separatism. Gria argues that the creation of the matrioal households so that's led by a woman as an alternative to the heterosexual family. Political lesbianism is the only way to achieve equality. Men are the enemy and heterosexual relationships involve literally sleeping with the enemy. Lesbian relationships are the only non-opressive form of sexuality and radical feminists advocate for collective action such as protests and demonstr demonstrations. There strength and weaknesses. So it raises a profile of what has previously been considered private issues and it exposes the social construction of gender and gender roles. However, the criticism of Somerville would say that it ignores the progress that has been made and it discredits that actually we are progressive as a society and things are changing and it makes wider feminism seem ludicrous and men hate and that's where the reputational becomes of like you know all women hate men but it's not actually that we're just fighting for equality but radical feminist ideas tend to shine it in that light and it also ignores the element of choice within a relationship. So what power do radical feminists have to dictate? Well, actually women shouldn't be with men because if that's how a woman feels empowered and that's what makes her happy, then who are they to discredit that? Basically, next we have Marxist feminism. So capitalism is patriarchal and consequently it is the cause of women's oppression. Women create and socialize the next generation of workers and women act as a reserved labor force and women also absorb men's frustrations at their own oppression. Bartler argues that once capitalism is overthrown, the functionalist ideology of familism, sorry, will follow, allowing for equality. In a capitalist society, women were forced to rely on the men during the late stages of pregnancy and after giving birth. The patriarchal nuclear family is portrayed as the only place in which women can attain fulfillment. But as we know from looking at the family, that isn't true at all. The strengths and weaknesses of this would be that it shows the importance of economic production in all areas of social life and it shows greater understanding of the causes of women's oppression. A weakness is that it lacks there's a lack of emphasis on how men not capitalism oppress women. So it's basically too capitalist central and it doesn't explain why women perform unpaid domestic labor and not men. And also women are still oppressed in non- capitalist societies. And next we have difference feminism. So difference feminists do not see women as a single homogeneous group who all share the same issues and problems. Other feminisms are essentialist that is fixed beliefs and have created a false universality based around white western middle class women. Our identities are constituted through many different discourses and discourse basically means a way of seeing, thinking or speaking about something. Difference feminism allows for discussion and analysis of different forms of oppression including those along ethnic, class, sexuality and age based lines. Strengths of the difference feminist approach is that it allows for analysis of different forms of oppression and it allows for different forms of resistance and struggles to achieve equality. However, WB would criticize it by saying there are still important similarities such as the patriarchy uh sil seg abandons any notion of objective social structures and also having so many subgroups weakens the feminist movement. So rather than women working as a whole, if they're all against each other, saying, "Well, no, you're too white focused. You're ignoring this. You're ignoring that." It basically divides the group and makes it less powerful together. Whereas if they're all agreed that they're working on the same movement, they have more power together, if that makes sense. So I know I said that there were four main ones, but this one's kind of more niche. like it doesn't really get mentioned in my teaching I suppose but it's still a different type of feminism so we'll talk about it and that is dual system feminism so dual system feminism seeks to combine Marxist Marxist and radical feminist ideas there are two systems of oppression that being the economy which is the capitalism aspect and the sex gender system which is the patriarchy aspect Hartman discusses patriarchal capitalism by saying patriarchy is universal but it takes specific form in capital societies which focuses on the relationships between women's position in domestic division of labor and paid work. Walby argues that patriarchy and capitalism are at odds with each other. Capitalism seeks cheap female labor. Patriarchy seeks the domination of women in private sphere and capitalism is more do uh more powerful sorry. So patriarchy adapts by keeping women in low status jobs so they depend upon a male bread winner. Yet Paulo would say that patriarchy is not a system in the same way as capitalism. Instead, it is a descriptive term for pract practices such as male violence and control of women's labor. Okay. So, our next theoretical perspective is social action theory. Social action theory in sociology emphasizes that individuals are active agents who create and shape society through their interactions and meanings rather than being passively shaped by social structures. It focuses on microlevel interactions and the subjective meanings individuals attach to their actions. So they take a bottom up approach rather than a top- down approach. Our first theorist is Verber. There he is. Verbber perceives the world and society as a very complex and unpredictable system. To get a full understanding of human behavior, we need both structural and social action approaches. the level of cause which is the objective structural factors that shape people's behavior such as biological determinism. And then we also have the level of meaning which is the subjective meanings that individuals attach their actions such as rebelling against gender norms. Verbber argues that individual acts can be classified into four types. So first we have instrumentally rational action. The individual calculates the most efficient way of achieving the goal. value. Rational action. The goal has value for the individual, but the way of achieving it may not seem rational. Affectional action, an action that expresses emotion. And traditional action, a routine action that follows customs or traditions. Here are the strengths and weaknesses. I'm just going to go back to letting you pause it to save time for the video cuz this is going to get too long otherwise. Next we have me and symbolic interactionism. There he is with his lovely mustache. Uh symbolic interactionism focuses on how individuals create meaning through social interactions. He argued that society is shaped through symbolic communication particularly language and gestures. The self is developed through interaction with others using processes such as the I and me. The I represents an individual's spontaneous actions while the MI represents the internalized expectations of society. Role taken. Individuals learn to see themselves from the perspective of others developing a sense of self. Symbols play a fundamental role in shaping social behavior as people interpret it and assign meaning to their experiences. So the application that is meat's ideas can be applied to everyday social interactions helping us understand how people form identities based on how they think others perceive them. This is used in studies of socialization particularly in education and media where young people learn through interaction. They can mimic and adapt to things that they see. So for example the media, the content they consume, how they replicate that behavior. um exam and it explains microlevel interactions such as the ways people adjust their behavior based on feedback from others and it is relevant in modern social media studies where individuals construct their identities through online interactions like I said there. So again I'll let you have a look at the strengths and weaknesses. Next we have Curly and the looking glass self. We really have a face reveal for all the sociologists here. Uh, Kurley's looking glass self theory explains how individuals form their self-concept based on their perceptions of how others see them. Social interaction shapes selfidentity as people adjust their behaviors based on imagined judgments from others. The process involves three key stages. The first one being we imagine how we appear to others. Thinking about how people perceive our actions or appearance. We then interpretate their reactions. noticing approval, disapproval or indifferences. Then we finally develop a self of we develop a self-concept based on this interpretation which can lead to positive or negative self-esteem. Identity is not fixed and it continuously evolves as individuals engage in social interactions. So for example, education, how teacher labeling can impact you. So this can be applied to socialization especially in childhood and adolescence where selfidentity is highly influenced by peer reactions. It is useful in explaining social media behavior where individuals construct their online identity based on likes, comments and followers and it helps understanding self-esteem issues particularly in context where people have really heavily people rely heavily on external validation and it can be implied in education where students share their self-perception based on feedback from their peers and teachers. For example, Paul Willis's learn to labor the lads. They formed their identity about anti-school subcultures based on their alternative forms of status they received from the teachers when they acknowledged their bad behavior and consequently they were punished for that. They enjoyed that. So then they built their identities being on mischievous and devant deviant. Then we have the strengths of weaknesses. Again our next theory is Gooffman and the dramatical model or approach. I like this one. Here he is. Gothburn's dramatical approach compares social interactions to a theatrical performance where individuals play roles based on social expectations. Key concepts include the front stage versus the backstage behavior. People behave differently depending on whether they are in public, which is their front stage self, or private, which is their backstage self. Impression management. Individuals actively try to control how others perceive them by adjusting their behavior. Social roles and scripts. Like actors following a script, individuals conform to societal norms during interactions and the performance. Social interactions involve managing expressions, tone, and actions to fit the situation. This can be applied to everyday interactions such as how people behave differently at work versus at home. And it explains social media behavior where individuals carefully create their online presence which is our front stage self while their private self remains unseen which is our backstage self. Relevant in customer service and professional environments for example where employees engage in impression management to maintain a positive image and it helps in understanding devian and stigma as certain groups may struggle with managing impressions in society. A quick little thing that I like about the dramatical model and approach is that you have your front stage self and your backstage self. But actually, when you think of it, do we actually have multiple different front stages that we may change from, you know, when we're at work or when we're at school, when our family and different family members or our friends like we might change varying. So, is there actually such thing as a true backstage self or is it just multiple different front stages? Again, we have the strengths or weaknesses. Pause now if you'd like. And our final theorist is Giddens and structuration theory. There he is. Structur uh Giddon structuration theory bridges the gap between structure and agency, arguing that individuals shape society while being influenced by social structures. He rejects the idea that structures are completely deterministic and instead introduces the duality of structure meaning social structures both constrain and enable human action. So his key concepts are agency the ability of individuals to make choices and take action structure the rules and institutions that shape society. Reflexivity people continuously reflect on their actions and adjust their behavior. and time space distinction. How modern society allows interactions across time and space, changing social relations. Application um it explains changes in social norms such as shifts in gender roles where individuals challenge existing structures while still operating within them. And it can be seen in education systems where students navigate institutional rules while shaping the learning environment through their choices. Strengths and weaknesses. Again, I'll let you pause that. Moving on, we have postmodernism. Postmodernism is a perspective that challenges traditional grand narratives and universal truths about society, arguing that knowledge is relative and shared by individual interpretations and social contexts. Okay, so first we got Michelle Fuko and knowledge and power. So Fuko argues that power and knowledge are intertwined. Knowledge is not neutral but shaped by power structures. He introduces the concept of power and knowledge suggesting that those in power control knowledge production. Disciplinary power is institutions such as school, prison, hospitals that regulate individuals through surveillance and normalization. The truth is relative and what we actually accept as a truth is constructed by those in power and what they want us to believe. Fuko's ideas apply to modern institutions on how governments, media, and education shape societal norms. His theory challenges traditional views of power as top down such as monarchy or dictatorship and instead sees it as a diffuse throughout society. However, Fuko is often vague and lacks clear solutions. Social action theorists argue that his work can be overly deterministic, implying individuals have little agency. Next we have Borea with hyper reality and similacra. In postmodern society real reality is replaced with simulations which are copies with no original. Hyper reality refers to how media and consumer culture creates a world where this distinction between reality and fiction blurs. We construct our identities based on what we consume rather than through class or gender determinism. Similac refers to how images that are meant to be meant to represent something real but over time they lose their connection to the real thing and start to replace it. So examples of this would be reality TV shows and how they present themselves as real life but they are heavily edited scripted and staged to create drama and entertainment. Sociology must question what is real in a media saturated world. A criticism is that Borea's ideas can be abstract and difficult to apply scientifically which positivists dislike. So next we have Giddens and the idea of reflexive modernity. So he believes that we haven't entered postmodernity but rather late modernity. Reflexivity is the idea that individuals constantly reflect on and revise their identities and lifestyles in response to new information. disembedding. Social relationships are no longer tied to local contexts. For example, online dating. Before you had to go and meet someone physically in person and form relationships that way, whereas now we live in an increasingly online and digital world, you can meet people that way. Uh traditional structures such as class and gender still matter, but individuals have more agency. And a criticism of this is that structural theorists argue that Giddens may overstate individual agency and underestimate the continued influence of class, gender, and ethnicity and those social structures. Next, we have Beck and risk society and late modernity. We live in a risk society where the central concern is managing risks created by modernization itself. So that has come along with new issues such as climate change and nuclear threat. um manufactured risks. These are new global and unpredictable risks unlike traditional risks. So again linking to climate change it's different to what we would have had before. Late modernity Beck like Guinness argues we haven't moved into postmodernity but into a new phase of modernity known as late modernity characterized by rapid change uncertainty and reflexivity. individualization. Sociology must focus on how people navigate uncertainty, make choices and manage risks in a world where tradition no longer provides clear answers. Criticism of this is that Beck's theory is criticized for being too western centric and not accounting for global inequalities and risk exposure. Marxists argue we have outsourced risks to low-income countries by dangerous manufacturing industries and the risks of flooding with food production for a global market. And finally, we have liotard. I don't know if that's how it's said, but the death of meta narratives. Postmodernity is critical of meta narratives, which are big universal explanations like Marxism or functionalism. Knowledge is fragmented. There is no single truth, only multiple competing perspectives. Sociology should embrace diversity, difference, and localized knowledge. Criticism of this is that rejecting all meta narratives can lead to relativism where no perspective can be judged as better or worse, undermining efforts for social justice. Feminists and Marxists would be very critical and that women, children, and working classes are victims of inequality. A stretch is arguably that postmodernism is just another meta narrative. They're saying that there is no universal truth whilst making a truth claim about how there is no universal truth. So, is there perspective just another big story? And finally, we have our last section. I apologize. This one is a bit messy and a bit long and thrown together because I was like, "Oh, it's the end of the PowerPoint." And I'm probably going to talk through it long and messy, too. But it's the last one, guys. Just pause where you want to and the notes are there and things like that rather than me reading it. But what is Marxism? Marxism is a theory that views society as shaped by class conflict and economic factors particularly the exploitation of the working class which is a proletariat by the owning class which is the bgeoisi and capitalist systems. So one of the first things that Marxists look at is materialism. Materialism is the view that human humans are beings with material needs such as food, clothing and shelter and must therefore work to meet them. In doing so, they use the means of production. In working to meet their needs, humans also cooperate with one another. They enter social relations of production, ways of organizing production. Over time, as the forces of means of production grow and develop, so too the social relations of production also change. A division of labor develops, and this eventually gives rise to a division between two classes. A class that owns the mean production and a class of laborers sets the bgeoisi in the proletariat. From then on, production is directed by the class of owners to meet their own needs. So the bgeoisi that work in their own interests and that don't accommodate for the workers. So Marxist materialism can be applied to real world issues such as class inequalities, capitalism, and social structures. For example, contemporary wealth inequality reflects Max's view that economic systems prioritize the interests of the ruling class over the working class. You might apply materialism to analyze phenomenon like wage, labor, exploitation, privitation, privatization, sorry, showing how economic relations drive social divisions. Then we have class. So in-class societies, one class owns the means of production and this enables them to exploit the labor of those for their own benefit. They can control society surplus product and this is the difference between what the laborers produce and what is simply needed to keep them alive and working. Marks identified three successive class societies each with its own form of exploitation. So in ancient society it was based on the exploitation of slaves which were legally tied to their owners and that then we moved to a feudal society based on exploitation of surfs which are agricultural laborers who are legally tied to their land and we currently live in a capitalist society which is based on the exploitation of free wage laborers. Capitalism is based on division between a class of owners, the bgeoisi or capitalist class and a class of laborers which is the proletariat or so. Firstly, unlike slaves or surfs, the proletariat are legally free and separated from the means of production because they do not own any means of production. They must sell their labor power to the bgeoisi in return for wages to survive. However, the proletariat do not receive the value of the goods that their labor produces, but only the cost of substance of keeping them alive. The capitalist class make profit by selling the commodities that the proletariat have produced. So, for example, a worker might make a product that sells for £100 yet they might only earn an equivalent of like a pound from it. So the bgeoisi are thriving as they sell the product and make loads of money whereas the proletariat is scraping by with what little they have. Secondly through competition between capitalists ownership of the means of production becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. So for example think of the big transnational corporations such as I don't know take like Coca-Cola for example like it's not just Coca-Cola that own loads of other different things. Competition also forces capitalists to pay the lowest wages possible, causing the impoverishment of the proletariat. So the the cheaper the wages they can get away with, that means they're making more money for themselves. So again, they're working in their own interests. And thirdly, capitalism continually expands the means of production in pursuit of profit. Production becomes concentrated in even larger larger units. Meanwhile, technological advances deskill the workforce. Concentration of ownership and the deskkilling of the proletariat together produces class polarization. Society is divided basically. So next we have consciousness. According to Marx, capitalism sews the seeds of its own destruction. For example, by polarizing the classes, the proletariat are brought together in even larger numbers and driving down their wages. Capitalism creates the conditions under which the working class can develop a consciousness of its own political and economic interests. As a result, the proletarate moves from being merely a class in itself to become a class for itself. Its members have class consciousness and are aware that they need to overthrow capitalism. So that's basically the idea like in the end of the communist manifesto Markx famously says working men of all countries unite. So that's basically saying the working class, they all have a shared struggle and there's no one representing them. So why don't they all group together and represent themselves because they know that they're being exploited and therefore they can overthrow capitalism and solve it from what he believed would be a communist society gaining everyone like being beneficial for all basically. Next we have ideology for Markx. The class that owns a means of production also owns a production of ideas. The dominant ideas in society are therefore the ideas of the economically dominant class. The institutions that produce and spread ideas such as religion, education, media all support the dominant class by producing ideologies. Ideology fosters a false consciousness in the subordinate classes helping to sustain class inequality. However, workers can develop a class consciousness like we've previously discussed. Then we have the idea of alienation. So alienation is the result of our loss of control over labor and its products and therefore our separation from our true nature. Alienation exists in all class societies because their owners control the production process for their own needs. However, under capitalism, alienation reaches its peak for two reasons. Number one being workers are completely separated from and have no control over their means of production and also the division of labor is at its most intense and detailed. The work is educated to an unskilled laborer mindlessly repeating a meaningless task. And then finally we have the state. So marks define the state as an armed body of men. The state exists to protect the interests of the ruling class. They use the state as a weapon in the class struggle to protect their property, suppress opposition, and prevent revolution. So again, the powerful are a part of the state and the state works in interest of the powerful. So again, it's that's how they're all intertwined. Markx believes that the proletariat revolution that overthrows capitalism will be the first revolution by the majority against the minority and consequently it would abolish the state and create a classist communist society. Starting with the most advanced nations, it would abolish exploitation and replace private ownership with social ownership and replace production for profit with production to satisfy human needs. And it would also end alienation as humans regain control of their labor and its products. So here we have internal criticisms for Marxism. So it's Marxists talking about Marxism. I'll pause this here and let you have a look at it. And then here we have external criticisms. So again I'll let you pause that and have a look. So finally we have reached the end of the video and now I can make the conclusion of what my title will be which is research methods and theory in 100 minutes. But I just wanted to say thank you so much for all the support and thank you if you've actually made it to the end. And my next videos will be family and media for paper two and crime and demons for paper 3. But I hope you enjoyed this video and I hope you found it helpful. Uh leave comments about how I can improve or more things you'd like to see because if I can do more videos in between I will, but obviously I'm going to focus on these big chunky videos. But yeah, see you all next time.