Ruth’s Sociology Resources Blog

I’ve spent some time over the last couple of days playing around with a mindmapping tool called Freemind. I’m very much a visual learner and for me the easiest way to understand or plan something is to draw a diagram.

So how on earth is this relevant to Sociology? Well, mindmapping is often a very useful way of gathering ideas, constructing essay plans and revising topics. On paper it tends to get a bit messy, but on a computer you end up with something that you can change as much as you like. As a teacher I often get my students to construct mind maps of topics or even whole units so that they can see how the bits fit together - with a subject as complex as Sociology it is often the only way to illustrate the links between ideas.

To illustrate, here is an image of a mind map that I’ve constructed using Freemind to help me plan out the writing I’m currently doing on Home Education:

I have to say I’m very impressed with Freemind - it’s easy to use and best of all it’s free. It is a piece of opensource software so it is free for any individual or organisation to download and use. One tip is that once you’ve got it open, if you select the Modes menu and click on Browse you get a mindmap help guide which is very useful.

Short but sweet, this is a lovely illustration of some of the problems with official statistics in general and crime statistics in particular.  A study suggests that crime has increased rather than decreased during Labour’s term in office, the Conservatives accuse Labour of manipulating the statistics.

BBC NEWS | UK | Labour crime claims ‘misleading’

All sorts of issues are raised here, including:

• the reliability and validity of official statistics
• to what extent are official statistical measurements a reflection of political/official motives and viewpoints rather than of reality?
• the difficulty of operationalising the concept of crime (or even individual crimes) so as to make them objectively measurable - even though these are in Durkheimian terms “social facts” and therefore able to be studied using scientific methods to produce absolute measurements

The following article is a classic example of the debates around young people and crime that go on in real life and also a mini example of the ways in which theories of crime and deviance can be applied.

BBC NEWS | UK | Asbos ‘demonising’ young people

The article mentions labelling theory - the idea that when society labels an individual as ‘criminal’, ‘anti-social’ or even positively as ‘hard-working’ or ‘responsible’, that person is likely to take on that identity and fit their behaviour to society’s expectations of them. The argument is therefore that by giving out numerous ASBOs to young people they are being labelled ‘criminal’ and therefore are more likely to live up to this label. Labelling theory was of course developed by Howard Becker (although the article fails to mention this) and for those of you looking for a synoptic link it has also been applied to education and the creation of anti-school subcultures among pupils.

Also raised by the article is the issue of the unclear line between ‘normal’ behaviour, deviance, and criminality, as it asks where the line should be drawn between “high jinks” behaviour on the part of young people and behaviour that should be deemed criminal. Such behaviour is often seen as deviant by wider society but is also to some extent accepted as part of a youth subculture.

The discussion of labelling and subcultures, in many ways leads on naturally to the discussion of Cohen’s (1972) ‘folk devils‘, moral panics and deviance amplification. This comes out in a less theoretical manner in the article above. Essentially, in labelling certain groups of young people as criminal and deviant by giving them ASBOs, it can be argued that they are being created as ‘folk devils’ - a group who essentially become scape goats - seen as responsible for societal problems. This can in turn lead to a ‘moral panic’ in society whereby there is great concern over certain behaviours. The argument is that the labelling of a certain group and public reactions can actually lead to a process of ‘deviance amplification’. This is essentially a cyclical process whereby:

• a group is labelled deviant
• public/media attention is brought to bear on that group
• this can result in stricter policing of the group (eg the imposition of ASBOs)
• because of greater policing of their activities they are more likely to be found to be deviant, and also they may be excluded from other non-deviant activities (social exclusion)
• the label is confirmed and the cycle continues

The Economist’s bumper Christmas edition is always a good source of interesting articles.

Pushtunwali | Honour among them | Economist.com

This article looks at the Pushtun tribe in Afghanistan and their unique culture, the article quotes Churchill saying that “Their system of ethics, which regards treachery and violence as virtues rather than vices … is incomprehensible to a logical mind”.

The article is actually slightly more analytical than this, looking at the ways in which a set of values and norms comes together to create a unique culture, where obligation to murder and gain revenge are balanced by obligations to hospitality and to give refuge to those seek it.

The reasons for Pushtunwali’s long survival are examined and include the remoteness of Pushtun populations as well as the meritocractic structure of social hierarchies, with status gained rather than inherited. The article also outlines the ways in which Pushtuns are negotiating their own cultural structures in relation to Islamic cultural and religious structures and pressures in Afghanistan and also in relation to the presence of US forces.

Much of the Pushtun culture is inherently repulsive to those of us from Westernised cultures because of the clash with the values that we take for granted as “right”.   At the same time it serves as a reminder that values, rather than being absolutes are culturally relative, shifting from social group to social group and shaping the behaviour of individuals.

Reading | Catching up | Economist.com

Another Economist article from the Christmas 2006 edition, this provides a brief outline of current policy surrounding the government’s literacy strategy. It looks at the ways in which policy has succeeded - in that literacy levels have increased - but also the ways in which it has encountered problems in that a significant proportion (6% - about 1 in every 17) of children still fail to learn to read before they leave primary school.

The question of the purpose of reading is also raised, with data showing that children are more likely to see reading primarily as a skill needed for employment than as something to do for pleasure, with fewer children enjoying reading now than in 1997. The article points out that this is not necessarily a good development as enjoying reading is associated with educational success. Critics of New Labour’s policies can argue that the government’s emphasis on raising standards and also on the economic role of education may actually have served to undermine itself by decreasing children’s interest in reading and therefore in learning.

For those of you studying the Sociology of Religion, the following article from (yet again!) the Economist is worth reading.  Looking in particular at the rise of the pentecostal churches in South America and Africa as well as the pentecostal movement more generally, there is also a brief section considering the viewpoints of Marx, Weber and Durkheim on religion and how these viewpoints relate to pentecostalism.
Pentecostals | Christianity reborn | Economist.com

Apologies to anyone who has had trouble viewing this site over the last week  - we’ve had some issues with different versions of Internet Explorer and that has also had some effect on anyone viewing the site via Firefox.  Hopefully all issues are now fixed.