Social Theory and Australian Policies - Essay Example

Social Theory and Australian Policies Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Introduction Social theories were developed centuries ago and are still being used in society today. They were generally laid down as frameworks that are be used as evidence in study and to try and interpret the occurrence of social phenomena (Browning, Halcli & Webster, 2000). Most of the social theorists proposed that most of the relationships that existed between any two interrelating concepts of life had a sociological explanation. They tend to explain the overall social life of people and their interaction with the environment (Summers, 2003). The Postmodernism Theory The theory of post modernism is also referred to as the post modernity theory or the post structuralism theory. It is linked to various theorists like Jean Baudrillard, Zygmunt Bauman and Frederic Jameson among many others. However, it was first linked to the writings of Jean Francois Lyotard in 1984 (Dillon, 2010). This theory carries the most significant and the most contentious issues that have arisen in society. For instance, it covers matters of emergence of new social movements like minority groups, the rights of women, gay/lesbianism movements as well as environmental issues (Dillon, 2010 pp.15). According to this theory, a reflection is made on the tremendous changes that the world is undergoing. It is of the notion that the contemporary world has undergone a shift in its fundamental features of the realities of the social aspects (Hurst, 2005). The contributors assert that the world is at one point going to go beyond the stage of modernity. It is a time and aspect and that there has been a wave of change in the cultural practices of the society as well as the political organizations of many governments (Summers, 2003). As a result, other new dominant ways of living are emerging with the phases of modernity. Post modernism encompasses both soft and hard versions. The soft versions argue about a gradual continuation of modernity into the many coming years. The hard versions that were exemplified by Jameson and Harvey included some aspects of capitalism (Wallace & Wolf, 2006). They argued that the world is already in the postmodernism stage characterised by mass consumerization and globalization. Other aspects of a post modern society are science, technology, inventions and objectivity. The theory rejects linear progress of a society and asserts that societal change occurs in forms that are very unpredictable (Hurst, 2005). One of the changes in the social movements of the Australian contemporary society is gay marriages, as lauded below. Gay Marriage Policy in Australia One interesting policy in Australia that has elicited much debate is the discussion on same –sex marriages (Summers, 2003). The sociological theories tend to see the idea of same sex marriages as a social problem. The contemporary social theory provides, for instance, that it is a social problem that exists which has in fact received quite a considerable amount public debate and attention in the past several decades. In Australia the government does not make the practice of same-sex marriages legal (Browning, Halcli & Webster, 2000). However, there has been much campaign advocating for the legalization of the same. The post modern society is a classic example of a society whose societal movements and organizations have changed over time. Gender roles in society are even contested for (Kivisto, 2008). Traditionally, roles were allocated or taken depending on the sex of the person. There is an increasing burden on the individual person to construct or shape their own identity. The media is also replacing the traditional forms of socialization and has taken over the role of providing and advocating for the structure of the life of the society. The agents that were the traditional shapers of the society now play a very insignificant role (Summers, 2003). For instance, advocacy of gay rights in Australia has sprouted out of the notion of freedom, justice, the freedom of democracy, human rights as well as western values (Dillon, 2010). All these are norms that have come along with the notion of postmodernism. According to Gibbins, 2005 at pg.44, the post modernism perspective in relation to governmental policies should aim at empowering the citizens. This can be achieved through encouragement of autonomy and independence, self- reliance, self-actualisation of the citizens and freedom of expression at the individual level. Therefore, the notion of allowing same-sex marriages is a form of liberation which is an aspect of the postmodern society (Gibbins, 2005). Moreover, the notion of postmodernism in policy must increase plurality in society. Plurality can be promoted by giving the individuals and groups a common space to share. In addition it could be achieved by negotiating comfortable ways of living and individual expressions that are legitimate (Gibbins, 2005). It also involves giving respect to the values and the beliefs of others. In this case, if two persons of the same sex find it comfortable to marry each other, they then ought to be given space and freedom to do so. It means that the choice is according to their values and beliefs (Dillon, 2010). Just as the postmodernism theory stipulates, gays and lesbians fall between the minorities groups of the modern society. They must therefore be given their rights and freedoms as they deserve (Summers, 2003). The Australian policy on whether to legalize or not to legalize same-sex marriages can thus be shaped upon the post-modernism theory. It is supposed to take a neo-liberal approach that gives room for more choices and respect for the minority groups that have long been neglected (Gibbins, 2005). In this regard the government will be putting into consideration the welfare of all its citizens while formulating the policy. Emile Durkheim (The Structural-Functionalism Theory) Of the most celebrated social theorists is Emile Durkheim who lived between 1858-1917. Considered by many as the father of sociology, the man developed a theory of social facts that tried to separate sociology from philosophy (Dillon, 2010). He viewed them as two totally different disciplines. Durkheim’s theory particularly differentiates sociology from philosophy and psychology. He asserts that social facts are based on the community’s social structures and the prevailing cultural norms and practices. Moreover, he says that most of them are coercive and external to individuals (Kivisto, 2008). This means that the social facts cannot be attached to any individual. The key focuses of Emile Durkheim theory are on the bases for social solidarity amongst human beings in a society (Browning, Halcli & Webster, 2000). It also focuses on the social order and human behaviours in society both the traditional society and the modern society. According to him, solidarity involves the factors that hold the society together. If the factors are not there, then what will make the society to disintegrate? Generally, both the modern and the traditional societies exhibit some features which still impact on the societies themselves (Hurst, 2005). The factors may include morality issues, the traditional values and the norms that the society believes in and religion as well. On the negative, factors such as deviance and crime can make the society to disintegrate. Durkheim was much concerned about morality and social order. Nonetheless, he believed that any occurrence of a revolution could easily result in social turmoil. Morality involved collective conscience and responsibility. In his study of sociology, he studied the behaviour of human beings from a sociological perspective and stressed that human behaviour could not be attributed to the simple individual but that the society played a very important role in shaping the human behaviour (Kivisto, 2008). Asserting some of his principles from the work of Darwin, Durkheim believed that human beings have the potential to adapt to the changing societal institutions just as plants and animals change to adapt to the surrounding circumstances (Wallace & Wolf, 2006). His basic argument was that any society that would change to adapt to any new arising circumstance is a very healthy society. On the other hand, those that did not have the adaptation mechanisms were merely “pathological”. Indeed, social order is based on the kind of social solidarity that exists within a society and this he referred to it as mechanical solidarity (Dillon, 2010). More importantly, collective conscience must permeate through the entire society if there has to be solidarity. He based his arguments on eight key concepts. These are: social facts, mechanical solidarity, organic solidarity, anomie, collective conscience, egoistic suicide, anomic suicide as well as forced and spontaneous division of labour (Dillon, 2010). In modern Australia, some key policies could apply Durkheim’s principles of social theory so as to achieve their objectives. Below are the various illustrations. The implications of Durkheim’s views on policy in Australia A deeper look at the Australian community reveals quite a high rate of deviance and crime. Just as Durkheim asserted, crime and deviance is part and parcel of every society in the world. He argued that crime as a societal element is both necessary and inevitable (Browning, Halcli & Webster, 2000). It is a social fact that cannot be affected as we cannot expect every individual in society to follow the laid down moral code. Moreover, he postulated that even if every human being in a society was a “saint”, crime would still be present because it would mean that even the tiniest of the transgressions would be branded as crime (Dillon, 2010). Thus, in order to be able to understand sociology and the policy on crime prevention in Australia, it is first of all important to look at the social facts that make up the society. These are morality, issues of legislation, and the employment levels of the population, the prevailing levels of social inequalities and the incidences of poverty (Wallace & Wolf, 2006). For instance, one will find that the high levels of poverty are a very great contributor to social crime and deviance. The large part of the unemployed population will always tend to get involved in crime as a means of survival (Kivisto, 2008). If the Australian government is to fight crime, it must then create more opportunities for employment so as to reduce the margin in social inequalities and reduce the poverty levels. However, when the crime levels transcends beyond a certain level, then the society is now termed as pathological (Dillon, 2010). If the high moral collective conscience can be present in the mind of every citizen, then there would be o crime at all. But the situation is almost impossible to achieve. According to Durkheim, an act is categorized as being criminal if it has the ability to shock the conscience of human beings (Browning, Halcli & Webster, 2000). The theory can also apply to the governmental policies of social solidarity and spontaneous division of labour. According to Durkheim, it is the role of the national government to make the appropriate interventions that will be aimed at levelling the playing field for all the citizens. This will encourage solidarity and peaceful cohesion (Dillon, 2010). Therefore the Australian government must do everything in its power to promote social integration of the citizens in order to enhance solidarity. Collective legislation can fight crime by bringing together collective conscience. The achievement and maintenance of social solidarity and mechanical solidarity amongst the country’s citizens requires a number of strategies. For instance, there has to be spontaneous division of labour (Dillon, 2010). This must also be done on an equal basis without any discrimination and favouritism. For the purposes of achieving this, the government ought to provide equal schooling opportunities for very one. Even the post-schooling activities must be made accessible to all the deserving candidates (Durkheim in Dillon, 2010). Failure to provide these is what spring into lawlessness and disorder in society. Significantly, Durkheim argued strongly for the promotion of common values among the citizenry. In his case, all governments must show respect and dignity to all their citizens. It is s fundamental human right and should not be denied under any circumstance (Dillon, 2010). In the promotion of these, the role of trade unions and non-governmental organizations become very necessary. Such occupational associations are very god in advocating for the rights of the citizens. Therefore, there is every need to lessen the gap of inequality in the society and this will help in the promotion of social order and peaceful cohesion (Wallace & Wolf, 2006). When the labour is divided equally and fairly, the people are able to find their places of satisfaction and talent and will then live very peacefully. Division of labour creates a strong sense of solidarity by making the people interdependent (Durkheim in Dillon, 2010). Moreover, the government can promote socialization by preaching the spirit of nationalism and patriotism through national holidays, the flag, the national anthem and other social activities like sports and national rallies (Hurst, 2005). Conclusion Most social theorists undertook the work of explaining the social phenomena that takes place in society (Dillon, 2010). Their work is mostly appreciated in the application of the sociological theories to the social problems that are encountered in society. Moreover, most national policies in Australia can also be formulated from a sociological perspective. It is therefore, of paramount importance that the policies should lean towards allowing many individual liberties that will maintain traditions and the same time foster social solidarity and peaceful cohesion (Gibbins, 2005). This is the real essence of the philosophical positions that give preferred approaches to the building of the society. References Browning, G. K., Halcli, A., & Webster, F. (2000). Understanding contemporary society: theories of the present. London, SAGE.pp.77-83 Craib, I. (1997). Classical Social Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 11-22 and 64 85. Dillon, M. (2010). Introduction to sociological theory: theorists, concepts, and their applicability to the twenty-first century. Chichester, U.K., Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.pp.1-30 Goffman, E. (1981). Stigma; notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. pp. 56-70 Hurst, C. E. (2005). Living theory: the application of classical social theory to contemporary life. Boston, Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.pp.1-20 Kivisto, P. (2008). Illuminating social life: classical and contemporary theory revisited. Los Angeles, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks. pp. 33-45 Miles, S. (2001). Social theory in the real world. London, Sage. pp. 20-24 Summers, A. (2003). The end of equality: work, babies and women's choices in 21st century Australia. Milsons Point, NSW, Random House Australia.pp.5-32 Wallace, R. A., & Wolf, A. (2006). Contemporary sociological theory: expanding the classical tradition. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.pp 67-75 Read More