Sociologys Perspective on the Human World and How It Differs from Common Sense - Essay Example

?Sociology’s Perspective on the Human World and How It Differs from Common Sense Introduction Sociology causes persons to move beyond individual activities when explaining human behaviour. The discipline offers structural and contextual insights that may have otherwise gone unnoticed by the ordinary human being. Through an examination of three examples of human behaviour, it will be shown how sociology provides an unconventional perspective on patterns of behaviour. Sociology’s perspective Women in the Middle East When a westerner looks at women from the Middle East, especially in conservative Muslim states, one would easily presume that these women are subservient in nature. They tolerate the dictates of a patriarchal community without question and are doomed to an insignificant life. Women in rural Afghanistan are not permitted to purchase land, cars or other assets without male accompaniment or consent. Further, several of them do not get a chance at an education because it goes against societal norms. Many Middle Eastern women cannot have careers, go out or even expose their faces and parts of their bodies like many females in this country. Indeed, as a person from a completely different society, I would simply assume that such women are just not aggressive enough to fight for their rights. The disadvantage and injustice that they have to bear is something that can be reversed. As a layman, I would simply assume that they lack the will and tenacity to change these oppressive gender roles. However, sociology would present a totally different way of understanding conservative Middle Eastern women. Scholars would explain that gender identity and hence gender roles are sociologically predetermined. The persons who embrace these roles are so intertwined in their social structures that they do not even realise its repressive charcteristics. Bradley (2007) explains that one has to step outside one’s frame in order to understand oneself properly. Harriet Bradley was a feminist who encountered much of the same passivity that Middle Eastern women face today. The society in which she grew was immensely patriarchal and penalised women for acts that both genders committed. A typical example was premarital pregnancy. The author awoke to the reality of her situation when she stepped outside her gender frame, or the category which society had placed upon her, in order to realise her potential. Therefore, sociology points out that women in such oppressed positions are simply victims of their social order. Many of the men in these patriarchal societies will justify their privilege through the use of biology. A typical layman may simply believe those explanations. However, sociology questions them and even provides contradicting explanations for them. Connell (1997) affirms that social relations shape biological processes. Therefore, sexist ideologies that are often supported by biological justifications are unfounded because sex and gender are two different things. The former is biological but the latter is social. Consequently, holders of privilege would stick to this definition because it would seem natural and unquestionable. Sociologists, however show that the biological is the foundation upon which the social is built. Oakley (1972) believes that although persons are sometimes predisposed to certain behaviour owing to their biological traits, society’s expectations of the same tends to exemplify these traits. This situation of Middle-Eastern women can also be understood in a different light when considering the gendered divisions of labour. One’s upbringing has a profound effect on the gender identity of a human being. Connell (1997) explicates that gender roles have been arranged in a manner that perpetuates reproduction. Divisions of labour that require women to be caregivers and men to work will ensure that a society perpetuates itself. Therefore, persons in conservative Muslim societies are applying this theory explicitly. They have created frames, albeit oppressive ones, to ensure that women will remain caregivers. An uneducated woman has no chance at a career or self sustenance outside of her marital home. Therefore, she will remain in an abusive marriage because her survival depends on it. As such, society will always have mothers taking care of their children in a matrimonial setting. Sociology explains why and how these women lack alternatives. Theories on gender move beyond superficial acceptance of the norm, and get to the structural justification for female subjugation. The case of a paedophile Paedophiles seem to be one of the most repulsive wrongdoers in society. They prey upon the innocence of children and cause psychological or psychical trauma to their victims for life. When one watches a report about a paedophile that has been caught, these perpetrators often appear calm but unrepentant about their wrongs. Some may even deny doing it. It is quite appalling that acts of paedophilia are sometimes committed against one’s own offspring or close relatives. A layman would watch such media reports and conclude that these are nothing more than sadistic monsters. They would assume that paedophiles enjoy hurting people and should be taken away from the rest of society. While some individuals may actually be sadistic, sociology places these acts into context. It provides a foundation for understanding how deviance comes about. Elsewhere, Downes and Rock (1998) notes that sociology is wrought with differing perceptions on deviance and criminology. Sometimes, these theories may contradict one another, but they provide some insight on why a disturbing act like paedophilia would occur. Control theorists would affirm that proper rules are essential to a properly functioning society (Downes and Rock, 1998). People abstain from abnormal behaviour because certain sociological factors control their impulses. For instance, a person may want to steal when they lack enough finances but the fear of exposure among one’s family or friends as well as the legal ramifications would prevent the person from engaging in the vice. Additionally, a married man may want to have an affair with his best friend’s wife but his conscience may prevent him from doing so. Likewise, an accountant may be tempted to siphon funds from his or her employer but their motivation to succeed may cause them not to do so. In essence, control theory postulates that human beings have internal and external controls that prevent them from acting defiantly. If any of these controls fail, then deviant behaviour may be manifested. Therefore, persons in this school of thought would explain that the paedophile is not a sadistic monster. His acts are due to gaps in internal or external controls. For instance, the legal controls for paedophilia may not have been swift and defined enough to restrain the paedophilic impulses. Alternatively, the person could lack internal controls such as poor socialisation, which teach people about social norms. The person may not have internalised the immorality of child defilement. Sociological explanations do not in any way justify criminal behaviour. However, they provide a context for its occurrence. Such knowledge can thus equip societies in preventing future incidences or at least demystify the act. Another way of looking at this matter would be through the lens of the society that labelled the person a paedophile. Sociology refrains from quickly judging a situation, and instead seeks to amalgamate all the factors that may have led to it. To sociologists, matters are not always as they seem and sometimes, the people doing the accusing may be responsible for occurrence of the act. Becker (1963) says that sociology moves beyond asking who broke the rules to who defined the rules and what were the situations that led to the infraction. Scholars in the discipline often explain that deviance is a phenomenon created by society. People decide upon the rules that will result in infractions if broken (Thompson, 2002). They cause some people to be called outsiders and thus face the consequences of that label. Therefore, it is not really the act that counts but others’ response to the act. Since the society may not always apprehend those who have committed the infraction or it may capture people who innocently committed the crime, then the lack of homogeneity in this group places responsibility primarily on the society that defines it. On the basis of Becker’s explanation, a sociologist would thus investigate the context upon which the act took place. He or she would be open to the possibility that some ambiguity was present when defining the act of paedophilia. Perhaps, the person did not know that this victim was indeed a child. She may have dressed and behaved in a manner to suggest otherwise. Therefore, the rules that society relies on to define the crime may have been inconsistent. On one hand, society expects men to find young women attractive. Girls may want material things, and could use their sexuality for that purpose. These ideas may coalesce, and if the man does not do his homework, he may find himself in precarious social situations. The consistency with which rules are applied and the process that society uses to come to these decisions is what defines deviant behaviour (Becker, 1963). The latter author cites the case of a tribe in the Trobraind Islands to expound on this concept. He explained that members of the tribe had punished an individual for incest. However, the case was not as straight forward as it may seem. The perpetrator had not committed an uncommon ‘crime’. In fact, several people have gotten away with incest if it was sufficiently discrete. On the other hand, if an interested party caught the offending party and made a scene out of it, then his actions would stir public opinion and resentment against it. Likewise, for the case of the paedophile, it is not what he did but people’s reaction to it that makes it deviant. Some level of hypocrisy and idealism may exist in implementation of rules thus explaining why a person would be daring enough to break one of them. Other sociologists may also offer another spin on the matter by introducing the concept of situational deviance. Goode (2011) differentiates between societal deviance and situational deviance. Societal deviance consists of those acts that are generally accepted as deviant in advance. Situational deviance depends on one’s social circle. Therefore, a person may appear normal in one circle but be reprehensible in another. Take for example the case of heterosexual dancing among Orthodox Jews. Members of this community forbid it and could even eject someone for insisting on the behaviour. On the other hand, if a member of that community were to go to a typical western society and refuse to dance with a member of the opposite sex, then their act would be labelled deviant. This situation may be applied to the case of the paedophile. Many westerners watching a report about the perpetrator may use their social norms to judge his behaviour. On the other hand, if the person had just come from a rural village in India, where child marriage is permitted, this may not have been an offense. The case is further compounded if the individual is actually married to the child through custom law. Kelly (2003) notes that refugee support groups are formed in order to help immigrants acclimatise to their new environment. If these people lack such assistance in transition, they may merely carry forward their belief systems into a new culture. Therefore, sociology helps to unravel the complex nature of enforcement of these acts. Unhelpful bystanders The matter of group psychology has always been a subject of fascination and repulsion for many. A few years back, media houses were flooded with images of a gruesome rape case in which a school girl was being raped while members of her school watched her indifferently. A number of them even filmed her while others took photos on the mobile phones. Scenes of this crime puzzled many and society wondered why no one would intervene in the situation. Common sense would hold that the spectators were bad children. They lacked a moral conscience and were thus willing to let one of their own suffer while they were watched. Once again, persons in this culture tend to overemphasise individual traits without linking them to context. A number of sociological theories may provide insight concerning why these individuals failed to act in the circumstance. Phillip Zimbardo was one such individual. He carried out an experiment at Stanford University that was intended at determining why seemingly good people commit crimes. He recruited a number of people at a university and told them that they would be taking part in an experiment. The researcher gave each participant the role of guard or prisoner. The experiment went on for six days and had to be stopped when the so-called prison guards took their roles too far. They mistreated the inmates as Zimbardo continued to give them directions on how to do so (Zimbardo, 2007). Therefore, his findings indicate that criminal behaviour is highly malleable. A seemingly harmless person in a confined setting can be manipulated to engage in certain deviant conduct. The Milgram experiment was equally plausible in this example because it also manipulated behaviour so as to turn them into evil persons (Milgram, 2005). When applied to the case of the passive bystanders in the media, one may explain that social dynamics came into play among the high school students. The social situation in the school was such that it caused them to refrain from altruistic behaviour. Additionally, the school system may have instilled biases against that particular girl. Sociology assists in moving beyond usual personality factors. It urges one to consider the situational factors of the deviant act as well as the systems that have been put in place. Conclusion Sociology strives to provide situational and contextual explanations for human behaviour. Too often, lay men tend to blame the perpetrators of those acts for the outcomes. They often point out flaws in another person’s personality. However, this discipline teaches one to think about systemic reasons behind other’s behaviour. References Becker, H., 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press. Bradley, H., 2007. Gender. Cambridge: Polity. Connell, R., 1997. Making gendered people: Bodies, identities, sexualities. London: Sage. Downes, D. and Rock, P., 1998. Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule Breaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goode, E., 2011. Deviant Behavior. London: Pearson. Kelly, L., 2003. Bosnian refugees in Britain: Questioning community. Sociology, 37(1), pp. 35-50. Milgrim, S., 2005. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London: Printer and Martin Ltd. Oakley, A., 1972. The biology of sex. London: Maurice Temple Smith. Thompson, K., 2002. Emile Durkheim. London: Routledge. Zimbardo, P., 2007. The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil. London: Rider Books. Read More